2 Democrats: Bush Let Guard Down
Gore Surrogates Revive Issue of Apparent Laxity in Candidate's Military Service

By George Lardner Jr. and Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, November 3, 2000; Page A22


Two high-profile surrogates for Vice President Gore, in an 11th-hour attempt to
exploit a dormant issue, yesterday castigated George W. Bush over allegations
that he did not fulfill some of his National Guard duties in the 1970s.



Democratic Sens. Bob Kerrey (Neb.) and Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), both Medal of
Honor winners, were drafted to attack Bush on a 27-year-old controversy that
the Gore campaign has avoided mentioning until now. They spoke by phone to a
veterans rally in Nashville led by Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.), a decorated
Vietnam veteran. Reporters were invited to listen by conference call.

Bush says he fulfilled all his obligations as a pilot in the Air National
Guard, but he has had difficulty rebutting charges that he played hooky for a
year.

"Where were you, Governor Bush?" Inouye asked. "What about your commitment?
What would you do as commander in chief if someone in the Guard or service did
the same thing?"

Kerrey questioned how Bush immediately got into the Guard "even though there
were 500 people ahead of him" at a time when "350 Americans were dying every
single week in Vietnam." Kerrey has been drawing a sharp contrast with Gore,
who served in Vietnam.

Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer called the attacks "the final throes of a campaign
that has now lost any semblance of decency. The governor, of course, was
honorably discharged, and these are inventions and fabrications. All the
questions have been answered."

But Gore spokesman Mark Fabiani said the senators "seem to have raised some
very important questions . . . that deserve an answer."

Bush signed up with the Texas National Guard for six years in May 1968, which
allowed him to avoid the Vietnam draft. He became an F-102 pilot in 1970 but
made his last flight in April 1972 before moving to Alabama to work on a GOP
Senate campaign. The dispute centers on what he did in the Guard between that
point and September 1973, when he entered Harvard Business School.

Bush campaign officials say their evidence shows that he did his duty in
1972-73, when he worked for six months on the Senate race in Alabama and then
returned to his home base outside Houston. But other documents in his Guard
record contradict that claim, and critics who have examined that record contend
that he also skimped on his obligations in 1973-74. It is safe to say that Bush
did very light duty in his last two years in the Guard and that his superiors
made it easy for him.

The personnel officer in charge of Bush's 147th Fighter Group, now-retired Col.
Rufus G. Martin, says he tried to give Bush a light load, telling him to apply
to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, Ala.

Martin said in an interview that he knew Bush wasn't eligible for the 9921st,
an unpaid, general training squadron that met once a week to hear lectures on
first aid and the like. "However," he said, "I thought it was worth a try. . .
.. It was the least participation of any type of unit." But Air Force Reserve
officials rejected the assignment, saying Bush had two more years of military
obligations and was ineligible for a reserve squadron that had nothing to do
with flying airplanes. Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett said Bush didn't know that
when he applied.

Bush had been notified that he needed to take his annual flying physical by his
26th birthday in July 1972, but the move to Alabama made that unnecessary. He
had been trained to fly F-102 fighter-interceptors, and none of the units in
Alabama had those planes. He could have taken the physical to preserve his
pilot's status but chose not to do so. "Because he wasn't flying," Bartlett
said.

On Aug. 1, 1972, Bush's commander in Houston, Col. Bobby W. Hodges, ordered him
grounded for "failure to accomplish annual medical examination." Some critics
say this should have triggered a formal board of inquiry, but Hodges said in an
interview that this was unnecessary because Bush accepted the penalty and knew
"he couldn't fly again until he takes a physical."

"It happens all the time," Hodges said of the grounding. "That is normal when a
Guardsman is out of state or out of the country."

In September, Bush was assigned to another Alabama unit, the 187th Tactical
Reconnaissance Group. Since "Lieutenant Bush will not be able to satisfy his
flight requirements with our group," the unit told him to report for
"equivalent training"--such as debriefing pilots--on the weekends of Oct. 7-8
and Nov. 4-5, 1972.

There is no evidence in his record that he showed up on either weekend. Friends
on the Alabama campaign say he told them of having to do Guard duty, but the
retired general who commanded the 187th, William Turnipseed, and his personnel
chief, Kenneth K. Lott, say they do not remember Bush ever reporting.

The Bush campaign points to a torn piece of paper in his Guard records, a
statement of points Bush apparently earned in 1972-73, although most of the
dates and Bush's name except for the "W" have been torn off.

According to the torn Air Reserve Forces sheet, Bush continued to compile
service credits after returning to Houston, winding up his fifth year with 56
points, six above the minimum needed for retention. However, Bush's annual
effectiveness report, signed by two superiors, says "Lt. Bush has not been
observed at this unit during the period of the report," May 1, 1972, to April
30, 1973.

Hodges also said he did not see Bush at the Texas base again after Bush left
for Montgomery. "If I had been there on the day[s] he came out, I would have
seen him," Hodges said.

Let's clarify this a bit. What the writer MEANT to say what that two DEMOCRATIC
PARTY politicians who just happened to have been awarded the Medal of Honor
have once again criticized President Bush's service in the Air National Guard.
The emphasis should not be that they won the Medal of Honor because there are
likely quite a few of the living holders of that medal who are not criticizing
President Bush's service in the Air National Guard. But as DEMOCRATIC PARTY
politicians, the two Senators have a powerful vested interest in criticizing a
Republican president if even the remotest possibility exists to do so.

Jerry Hall

First, what does the Medal of Honor have to do with politics? Nothing.

Second, we're talking about only two people. That's 2 out of 132 surviving
medal winners from WW2, Korea and Vietnam. If you do the math, that's 1.5
percent! Hardly a thought-provoking statistic.

If you were to poll the others, you may be shocked at the statistics. I know of
one locally who supports the President.

Ed
"If an enemy power is bent on conquering you, and proposed to
turn all of his resources to that end, he is at war with you;
and you -- unless you contemplate surrender -- are at war with
him." --Barry Goldwater

On 05 Jun 2004 13:01:19 GMT, (TekTeam26)
wrote:

>Let's clarify this a bit. What the writer MEANT to say what that two DEMOCRATIC
>PARTY politicians who just happened to have been awarded the Medal of Honor
>have once again criticized President Bush's service in the Air National Guard.
>The emphasis should not be that they won the Medal of Honor because there are
>likely quite a few of the living holders of that medal who are not criticizing
>President Bush's service in the Air National Guard. But as DEMOCRATIC PARTY
>politicians, the two Senators have a powerful vested interest in criticizing a
>Republican president if even the remotest possibility exists to do so.
>
>Jerry Hall

And the dateline is the Spring of 2000---four years ago!

Lots of information has been added since then and the Gore campaign
surrogates have pretty much disappeared from the political scene.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

>Let's clarify this a bit. What the writer MEANT to say what that two
>DEMOCRATIC
>PARTY politicians who just happened to have been awarded the Medal of Honor...

People don't just "happen" to be awarded the MOH.

Try again.

Walt

>First, what does the Medal of Honor have to do with politics? Nothing.
>
>Second, we're talking about only two people. That's 2 out of 132 surviving
>medal winners from WW2, Korea and Vietnam. If you do the math, that's 1.5
>percent! Hardly a thought-provoking statistic.
>

That's pitiful.

Walt

Let's get something straight!

Whether George Bush "served" in the Air National Guard or not, today he has
almost three years experience as wartime Commander-In Chief of the greatest
military force in history of mankind, which John Kerry does NOT have!
Kerry's four months of dodging bullets and mooching medals hardly qualifies
as military Command-In-Chief experience, which is the job in question, not
being patrol boat commander!

Those two MOH winners cited need to get a sense of proportion, especially
Bob Kerrey who has been so blatantly partisan at political blame laying
while a member of that appalling 9/11 "Star Chamber" Congressional
Commission!

So either get it right or forget it!

WDA

end



"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> 2 Democrats: Bush Let Guard Down
> Gore Surrogates Revive Issue of Apparent Laxity in Candidate's Military
Service
>
> By George Lardner Jr. and Howard Kurtz
> Washington Post Staff Writers
> Friday, November 3, 2000; Page A22
>
>
> Two high-profile surrogates for Vice President Gore, in an 11th-hour
attempt to
> exploit a dormant issue, yesterday castigated George W. Bush over
allegations
> that he did not fulfill some of his National Guard duties in the 1970s.
>
>
>
> Democratic Sens. Bob Kerrey (Neb.) and Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), both Medal
of
> Honor winners, were drafted to attack Bush on a 27-year-old controversy
that
> the Gore campaign has avoided mentioning until now. They spoke by phone to
a
> veterans rally in Nashville led by Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.), a decorated
> Vietnam veteran. Reporters were invited to listen by conference call.
>
> Bush says he fulfilled all his obligations as a pilot in the Air National
> Guard, but he has had difficulty rebutting charges that he played hooky
for a
> year.
>
> "Where were you, Governor Bush?" Inouye asked. "What about your
commitment?
> What would you do as commander in chief if someone in the Guard or service
did
> the same thing?"
>
> Kerrey questioned how Bush immediately got into the Guard "even though
there
> were 500 people ahead of him" at a time when "350 Americans were dying
every
> single week in Vietnam." Kerrey has been drawing a sharp contrast with
Gore,
> who served in Vietnam.
>
> Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer called the attacks "the final throes of a
campaign
> that has now lost any semblance of decency. The governor, of course, was
> honorably discharged, and these are inventions and fabrications. All the
> questions have been answered."
>
> But Gore spokesman Mark Fabiani said the senators "seem to have raised
some
> very important questions . . . that deserve an answer."
>
> Bush signed up with the Texas National Guard for six years in May 1968,
which
> allowed him to avoid the Vietnam draft. He became an F-102 pilot in 1970
but
> made his last flight in April 1972 before moving to Alabama to work on a
GOP
> Senate campaign. The dispute centers on what he did in the Guard between
that
> point and September 1973, when he entered Harvard Business School.
>
> Bush campaign officials say their evidence shows that he did his duty in
> 1972-73, when he worked for six months on the Senate race in Alabama and
then
> returned to his home base outside Houston. But other documents in his
Guard
> record contradict that claim, and critics who have examined that record
contend
> that he also skimped on his obligations in 1973-74. It is safe to say that
Bush
> did very light duty in his last two years in the Guard and that his
superiors
> made it easy for him.
>
> The personnel officer in charge of Bush's 147th Fighter Group, now-retired
Col.
> Rufus G. Martin, says he tried to give Bush a light load, telling him to
apply
> to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, Ala.
>
> Martin said in an interview that he knew Bush wasn't eligible for the
9921st,
> an unpaid, general training squadron that met once a week to hear lectures
on
> first aid and the like. "However," he said, "I thought it was worth a try.
.. .
> . It was the least participation of any type of unit." But Air Force
Reserve
> officials rejected the assignment, saying Bush had two more years of
military
> obligations and was ineligible for a reserve squadron that had nothing to
do
> with flying airplanes. Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett said Bush didn't know
that
> when he applied.
>
> Bush had been notified that he needed to take his annual flying physical
by his
> 26th birthday in July 1972, but the move to Alabama made that unnecessary.
He
> had been trained to fly F-102 fighter-interceptors, and none of the units
in
> Alabama had those planes. He could have taken the physical to preserve his
> pilot's status but chose not to do so. "Because he wasn't flying,"
Bartlett
> said.
>
> On Aug. 1, 1972, Bush's commander in Houston, Col. Bobby W. Hodges,
ordered him
> grounded for "failure to accomplish annual medical examination." Some
critics
> say this should have triggered a formal board of inquiry, but Hodges said
in an
> interview that this was unnecessary because Bush accepted the penalty and
knew
> "he couldn't fly again until he takes a physical."
>
> "It happens all the time," Hodges said of the grounding. "That is normal
when a
> Guardsman is out of state or out of the country."
>
> In September, Bush was assigned to another Alabama unit, the 187th
Tactical
> Reconnaissance Group. Since "Lieutenant Bush will not be able to satisfy
his
> flight requirements with our group," the unit told him to report for
> "equivalent training"--such as debriefing pilots--on the weekends of Oct.
7-8
> and Nov. 4-5, 1972.
>
> There is no evidence in his record that he showed up on either weekend.
Friends
> on the Alabama campaign say he told them of having to do Guard duty, but
the
> retired general who commanded the 187th, William Turnipseed, and his
personnel
> chief, Kenneth K. Lott, say they do not remember Bush ever reporting.
>
> The Bush campaign points to a torn piece of paper in his Guard records, a
> statement of points Bush apparently earned in 1972-73, although most of
the
> dates and Bush's name except for the "W" have been torn off.
>
> According to the torn Air Reserve Forces sheet, Bush continued to compile
> service credits after returning to Houston, winding up his fifth year with
56
> points, six above the minimum needed for retention. However, Bush's annual
> effectiveness report, signed by two superiors, says "Lt. Bush has not been
> observed at this unit during the period of the report," May 1, 1972, to
April
> 30, 1973.
>
> Hodges also said he did not see Bush at the Texas base again after Bush
left
> for Montgomery. "If I had been there on the day[s] he came out, I would
have
> seen him," Hodges said.
>
>
>
>

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> 2 Democrats: Bush Let Guard Down
> Gore Surrogates Revive Issue of Apparent Laxity in Candidate's Military
Service
>

and you would believe them? How does receiving the Medal of Honor better
qualify them to pass judgement on anything? Bravery in combat doesn't
translate to superior analytical abilities. Furthermore they are, as the
title "2 Democats...." notes, Democrat politicians, and therefore their
views on this matter are going to be suspect to any reasonable person. Here
is a more balance analysis of Bush's service. Note it isn't from one of the
fringe publications you like to quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/20001202233300/http://www2.georgemag.com/bush.html

Jarg

WalterM140 wrote:
>> Let's clarify this a bit. What the writer MEANT to say what that two
>> DEMOCRATIC
>> PARTY politicians who just happened to have been awarded the Medal of
>> Honor...
>
> People don't just "happen" to be awarded the MOH.
>
> Try again.
>
> Walt

You failed to mention that they both had won their MOHs long before they became
politicians. It was merely a credit to their good sense that those brave men
chose to become Democratic politicians.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> WalterM140 wrote:
> >> Let's clarify this a bit. What the writer MEANT to say what that two
> >> DEMOCRATIC
> >> PARTY politicians who just happened to have been awarded the Medal of
> >> Honor...
> >
> > People don't just "happen" to be awarded the MOH.
> >
> > Try again.
> >
> > Walt
>
> You failed to mention that they both had won their MOHs long before they
became
> politicians. It was merely a credit to their good sense that those brave
men
> chose to become Democratic politicians.
>
> George Z.
>
>

True, Democrat politicians have the advantage of representing poor thinkers,
so that was sensible given their limited reasoning abilities. Makes
reelection more likely.

But winning the Medal of Honor doens't indicate good sense. Bravery, yes.
Good sense, questionable.

Jarg

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:43:22 GMT, "Jarg"
> wrote:

>
>"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>> 2 Democrats: Bush Let Guard Down
>> Gore Surrogates Revive Issue of Apparent Laxity in Candidate's Military
>Service
>>
>
>and you would believe them? How does receiving the Medal of Honor better
>qualify them to pass judgement on anything? Bravery in combat doesn't
>translate to superior analytical abilities. Furthermore they are, as the
>title "2 Democats...." notes, Democrat politicians, and therefore their
>views on this matter are going to be suspect to any reasonable person. Here
>is a more balance analysis of Bush's service. Note it isn't from one of the
>fringe publications you like to quote:
>
>http://web.archive.org/web/20001202233300/http://www2.georgemag.com/bush.html
>
>Jarg
>
most of the medal of honor winners in the Korean war were Medics. so i
would agree with you their. Just because you won the MOH dosent make
you fit to lead troops into combat. I know a pacifist who was a medic
in world war 2 cause he could not take another life, so he choose to
save them instead, but you should hear some of the war time stories
he's told. I may not want to follow him into combat, but i know that
if i was ever wounded, he would go to hell and back to save me.

In article >,
Lyle > wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:43:22 GMT, "Jarg"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> 2 Democrats: Bush Let Guard Down
> >> Gore Surrogates Revive Issue of Apparent Laxity in Candidate's Military
> >Service
> >>
> >
> >and you would believe them? How does receiving the Medal of Honor better
> >qualify them to pass judgement on anything? Bravery in combat doesn't
> >translate to superior analytical abilities. Furthermore they are, as the
> >title "2 Democats...." notes, Democrat politicians, and therefore their
> >views on this matter are going to be suspect to any reasonable person. Here
> >is a more balance analysis of Bush's service. Note it isn't from one of the
> >fringe publications you like to quote:
> >
> >http://web.archive.org/web/20001202233300/http://www2.georgemag.com/bush.html
> >
> >Jarg
> >
> most of the medal of honor winners in the Korean war were Medics. so i
> would agree with you their. Just because you won the MOH dosent make
> you fit to lead troops into combat. I know a pacifist who was a medic
> in world war 2 cause he could not take another life, so he choose to
> save them instead, but you should hear some of the war time stories
> he's told. I may not want to follow him into combat, but i know that
> if i was ever wounded, he would go to hell and back to save me.

Desmond Doss, by any chance?

>Whether George Bush "served" in the Air National Guard or not,

He most certainly did. I looked at this as hard as I could, and I
concluded that his military service was longer than mine, more
dangerous than mine, and more useful to the country.

(It was also more fun, but then that's what being an officer is all
about.)

http://www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

>Let's get something straight!
>
>Whether George Bush "served" in the Air National Guard or not, today he has
>almost three years experience as wartime Commander-In Chief of the greatest
>military force in history of mankind, which John Kerry does NOT have!

Many senior officers have indicated that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake,
and had been bungled to the point of dereliction of duty. A former SecNav
called the invasion of Iraq the worst strategic blunder in memory.

Walt

>>Whether George Bush "served" in the Air National Guard or not,
>
>He most certainly did. I looked at this as hard as I could, and I
>concluded that his military service was longer than mine, more
>dangerous than mine, and more useful to the country.

This link shows conclusively that Bush did not earn the requisite 50 points for
a year's satisfactory service:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb72-73arfspe1.pdf


Walt

>WalterM140 wrote:
>>> Let's clarify this a bit. What the writer MEANT to say what that two
>>> DEMOCRATIC
>>> PARTY politicians who just happened to have been awarded the Medal of
>>> Honor...
>>
>> People don't just "happen" to be awarded the MOH.
>>
>> Try again.
>>
>> Walt
>
>You failed to mention that they both had won their MOHs long before they
>became
>politicians. It was merely a credit to their good sense that those brave men
>chose to become Democratic politicians.
>

Exactly.

Walt

John‰]
wrote:
> In article >, WalterM140
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>>Whether George Bush "served" in the Air National Guard or not,
>>>
>>>He most certainly did. I looked at this as hard as I could, and I
>>>concluded that his military service was longer than mine, more
>>>dangerous than mine, and more useful to the country.
>>
>>This link shows conclusively that Bush did not earn the requisite 50 points
>>for
>>a year's satisfactory service:
>>
>>http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb72-73arfspe1.pdf
>>
>>
>>Walt
>
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> The appropriate authority determined that he had had successfully and
> honorably completed his term of service and awarded him an honorable
> discharge. That certificate and the NGB Form 22 that accompanies it
> are prima facie evidence of honorable service.
>
> End of story. Get over it.

Agreed. Bush used family influence to get into and out of the guard.
That's certainly not illegal, and made good sense. How could
responsible parents stand by and allow their son to be wasted in a
debacle like Viet Nam?

Cheers

--mike
>
> John

>> >>Whether George Bush "served" in the Air National Guard or not,
>> >
>> >He most certainly did. I looked at this as hard as I could, and I
>> >concluded that his military service was longer than mine, more
>> >dangerous than mine, and more useful to the country.
>>
>> This link shows conclusively that Bush did not earn the requisite 50 points
>> for
>> a year's satisfactory service:
>>
>> http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb72-73arfspe1.pdf
>>
>>
>> Walt
>
>Irrelevant.

No it's not. The primary source (the document I linked to) cannot be trumped
by secondary sources beholden to Bush or his benefactors.

Bush did not sucessfully complete his obligatory service.

>
>The appropriate authority determined that he had had successfully and
>honorably completed his term of service and awarded him an honorable
>discharge.

According to one website, his DD-214 is missing. The one linked document I
viewed recently said he was "honorably" discharged by order of the governor of
Texas.

That's not how it works.

That certificate and the NGB Form 22 that accompanies it
>are prima facie evidence of honorable service.

Have you a link to this honorable discharge?

Walt

In article <ekGwc.10591$4S5.9270@attbi_s52>,
Mike Dargan > wrote:

> Agreed. Bush used family influence to get into and out of the guard.
> That's certainly not illegal, and made good sense. How could
> responsible parents stand by and allow their son to be wasted in a
> debacle like Viet Nam?

*If* you are correct, they must have been horrified when he volunteered
to fly the F-102 in VN, at a time when more-senior pilots from his unit
were serving there.

*If*.

In article >,
(WalterM140) wrote:

> >>Whether George Bush "served" in the Air National Guard or not,
> >
> >He most certainly did. I looked at this as hard as I could, and I
> >concluded that his military service was longer than mine, more
> >dangerous than mine, and more useful to the country.
>
> This link shows conclusively that Bush did not earn the requisite 50 points
> for
> a year's satisfactory service:
>
> http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb72-73arfspe1.pdf
>
>
> Walt

Again, Walt, that link does not include the 12 gratuity points that a
Reserve member receives each year. Those 12 point's put him over the 50
points you claim he needs.

"WalterM140" > wrote:
> >> >>Whether George Bush "served" in the Air National Guard or not,
> >> >
> >> >He most certainly did. I looked at this as hard as I could, and I
> >> >concluded that his military service was longer than mine, more
> >> >dangerous than mine, and more useful to the country.
> >>
> >> This link shows conclusively that Bush did not earn the requisite 50
points
> >> for
> >> a year's satisfactory service:
> >>
> >> http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb72-73arfspe1.pdf
> >>
> >>
> >> Walt
> >
> >Irrelevant.
>
> No it's not. The primary source (the document I linked to) cannot be
trumped
> by secondary sources beholden to Bush or his benefactors.
>
> Bush did not sucessfully complete his obligatory service.
>
> >
> >The appropriate authority determined that he had had successfully and
> >honorably completed his term of service and awarded him an honorable
> >discharge.
>
> According to one website, his DD-214 is missing.

He served in the TANG and was issued an NGB Form 22 according to the records
Bush has released (it was one of them included).
More than one Federal and State web site quote that an NGB Form 22: Report
of Separation and Record of Service is issued to a reservist when discharged
from the Army national Guard or Air National Guard.

http://www.vahomes.org/la/coe_ngb.htm

>End of story. Get over it.

You are evidently replying to someone whom I've kill-filed :)

It is not at all unusual for an individual to fall short in one year's
Guard training and to make it up the following year. That' seems to be
what Bush did in his last two years of service. The poster clearly
didn't bother to read www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm which deals
with this matter, and indeed every year of Bush's service. Instead he
preferred to trot out his own url, as if it were something new. It's
for tricks like that that I put him in the crapper.

As for getting over it, I don't think we have much hope.Liars and
tricksters aren't interested in getting at the truth.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

>Agreed. Bush used family influence to get into and out of the guard.

Did he? I find no evidence of either, though I'm sure that to be the
son of a Congressman helped him along when it came to being accepted
(but not in leaving). That's not the same thing as "using" the
connection. Short of changing his name, or joining the New York Guard,
there was nothing he could have done about it.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

In message >, Cub Driver
> writes
>
>>Agreed. Bush used family influence to get into and out of the guard.
>
>Did he? I find no evidence of either, though I'm sure that to be the
>son of a Congressman helped him along when it came to being accepted
>(but not in leaving).

I think influence played a part. On the other hand, learning to fly a
F-102 isn't the easiest thing in the world[1]. And F-102s were certainly
flying operational missions in SEA, and killed a few of their pilots -
not exactly a safe cushty desk job.

Did he bail early? Alleged, unproven, but even if he did so did lots of
other folks, with no worse consequences (yes, you had a 'further
commitment' - but no, the military wasn't hunting you down to fulfil it
and seemed to have been reducing force anyway). Didn't snag a college
deferment, either (which hasn't been a barrier to US office).


I become tired of hearing pocket ideologues of either shade rant about
how one candidate's uniformed service was perfectly exemplary while the
other's was a complete disgrace, and the noise and fury of the fanatics
means I'm wary even of more measured claims.


Not my problem anyway, just an outside perspective since the debate's
inflicted on me :)


[1] At least a knife-point of RAM relevance.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

>It is not at all unusual for an individual to fall short in one year's
>Guard training and to make it up the following year. That' seems to be
>what Bush did in his last two years of service.

Where is Bush's certificate of Honorable Discharge?

Walt

>>Agreed. Bush used family influence to get into and out of the guard.
>
>Did he? I find no evidence of either, t

He jumped a 500 person waiting list. There's no issue over whether Bush got
preferential treatment. The issue is that he did not fulfil his obligation.
He clearly did not.

Walt

>Did he bail early? Alleged, unproven

No it's not. Follow this link:

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif

It shows 5 years, 4 months and 5 days service out of a six year commitment.

Walt

>He served in the TANG and was issued an NGB Form 22 according to the records

Where is his "Honorable Discharge"? That's a certificate suitable for framing.

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif

This link to the document you cite clearly shows that Bush fulfiled only 5
years, 4 months and 5 days service out of a six year commitment.

Walt

>The poor loser party has been beating this dead horse since May 2000
>and has yet to produce a single shred of credible evidence to support
>it.

Follow this link:

http://awolbush.com/

Walt

"WalterM140" > wrote:
> >He served in the TANG and was issued an NGB Form 22 according to the
records
>
> Where is his "Honorable Discharge"?

It's on his NGB Form 22. Try reading it.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:31:54 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>Did he bail early? Alleged, unproven, but even if he did so did lots of
>other folks,

Well, he was transferred to inactive status in October 1973, and
formally discharged in November 1974. So what appears to have happened
is that he swapped six months of Guard-for-training for a year on
inactive reserve. In the normal course of events he would have
finished his hitch in May 1974.

He served the equivalent of 25 months on active service ("active duty
for training") over the course of six and one-half years. As noted,
that was a month more than I spent in the army, and I would spit in
the eye of anyone, MOH winner included, who told me I didn't serve.
Damn straight I did!

Bush's service is neither mysterious nor particularly interesting. The
first four years were exemplary, the last two perfunctory. Evidently
what happened was twofold: a) the war was winding down, and with it
the Guard's need for him and his need for the Guard; and b) the Guard
was no longer flying the F-102A, and it was worth nobody's time to
train him in another aircraft.

www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> He jumped a 500 person waiting list. There's no issue over whether Bush
got
> preferential treatment. The issue is that he did not fulfil his
obligation.
> He clearly did not.
>

The "big lie" doesn't seem to be working. Now what are you going to do?

In article >,
(WalterM140) wrote:

> >>Agreed. Bush used family influence to get into and out of the guard.
> >
> >Did he? I find no evidence of either, t
>
> He jumped a 500 person waiting list. There's no issue over whether Bush got
> preferential treatment. The issue is that he did not fulfil his obligation.
> He clearly did not.
>
> Walt

And all 500 of those people were qualified to be an F-102 pilot?
Just because you're on the bottom of the list doesn't mean you are not
the first qualified for a position, and willing to leave on their
training schedule.

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> This link shows conclusively that Bush did not earn the requisite
> 50 points for a year's satisfactory service:
>
> http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb72-73arfspe1.pdf
>

Actually, it doesn't.

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> No it's not. The primary source (the document I linked to) cannot
> be trumped by secondary sources beholden to Bush or his benefactors.
>

The primary source you linked to is incomplete. It's trumped by primary
sources that are complete.


>
> Bush did not sucessfully complete his obligatory service.
>

It's been proven that he did.

WalterM140 wrote:
>> It is not at all unusual for an individual to fall short in one year's
>> Guard training and to make it up the following year. That' seems to be
>> what Bush did in his last two years of service.
>
> Where is Bush's certificate of Honorable Discharge?

I believe I've seen a copy on one posted on the Internet some time ago. The
real question is how much influence was exerted by his father the Congressman to
get it issued. The answer to that little question seems to be clouded by smoke
and mirrors, as our Repug friends are wont to say. Smoke usually coming from
fire, I daresay that his Congressional hand is in it somewhere although I doubt
that, what with two presidents in the family, the public will ever learn the
truth about it.

George Z.

KeithK wrote:
> In article >,
> (WalterM140) wrote:
>
>>>> Agreed. Bush used family influence to get into and out of the guard.
>>>
>>> Did he? I find no evidence of either, t
>>
>> He jumped a 500 person waiting list. There's no issue over whether Bush got
>> preferential treatment. The issue is that he did not fulfil his obligation.
>> He clearly did not.
>>
>> Walt
>
> And all 500 of those people were qualified to be an F-102 pilot?
> Just because you're on the bottom of the list doesn't mean you are not
> the first qualified for a position, and willing to leave on their
> training schedule.

The odds are that at least 50 or more would have scored higher than the 25th
%ile in the aptitude test. He had no special qualifications to fly an F-102,
much less than any other jet or other powered aircraft. You don't seriously
believe that not one of those five hundred above him on the waiting list
wouldn't have given an arm or a leg for the opportunity to get into pilot
training. Anybody who thinks that is deluding himself.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> WalterM140 wrote:
> >> It is not at all unusual for an individual to fall short in one year's
> >> Guard training and to make it up the following year. That' seems to be
> >> what Bush did in his last two years of service.
> >
> > Where is Bush's certificate of Honorable Discharge?
>
> I believe I've seen a copy on one posted on the Internet some time ago.
The
> real question is how much influence was exerted by his father the
Congressman to
> get it issued. The answer to that little question seems to be clouded by
smoke
> and mirrors, as our Repug friends are wont to say. Smoke usually coming
from
> fire, I daresay that his Congressional hand is in it somewhere although I
doubt
> that, what with two presidents in the family, the public will ever learn
the
> truth about it.

You really don't know anything about how service is credited in the Guard
and Reserves, do you? Why don't you just come out and admit that instead of
tossing out unsubstantiated "seems to's", "daresays", and "doubts", which in
their sum total value as evidence are about as compelling as the usual
National Enquirer or Weekly World News article?

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>

George wrote:
>The odds are that at least 50 or more would have scored higher than the 25th
>%ile in the aptitude test. He had no special qualifications to fly an F-102,
>much less than any other jet or other powered aircraft. You don't seriously
>believe that not one of those five hundred above him on the waiting list
>wouldn't have given an arm or a leg for the opportunity to get into pilot
>training. Anybody who thinks that is deluding himself.
>

I doubt that he got any more consideration than the son of the civil service
secretary in Group HQ or the son of the SMSgt Maintenace supervisor in the CAM
Sqdn or the Airlift Sqdn CO's next door neighbor's son (who mowed the CO's law
for 6 years while in grade school and Jr Hi.)

He definitely got more consideration than most guys off the street or the goofy
kid from the local teacher's college or the local Penecostal preacher's kid.

He probably didn't get as much consideration as the All State QB who was going
to the same school as the State Adjudant General. "We'll talk about teaching
you to fly later son, Hell we'll even make you an officer."

oxmoron1
MFE

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> I believe I've seen a copy on one posted on the Internet some time
> ago. The real question is how much influence was exerted by his father
> the Congressman to get it issued.
>

Well, since his father wasn't a Congressman at the time, the answer has to
be, "None".

>The issue is that he did not fulfil his obligation.
>> He clearly did not.

He clearly did. www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm

What kind of pathological paranoia causes people to take these
positions?

(I notice it largely comes from people I've already kill-filed, so
evidently it has been apparent for some little time.)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

>> Where is Bush's certificate of Honorable Discharge?
>
>I believe I've seen a copy on one posted on the Internet some time ago. The
>real question is how much influence was exerted by his father the Congressman
>to
>get it issued. The answer to that little question seems to be clouded by
>smoke
>and mirrors, as our Repug friends are wont to say. Smoke usually coming from
>fire, I daresay that his Congressional hand is in it somewhere although I
>doubt
>that, what with two presidents in the family, the public will ever learn the
>truth about it.
>
>George Z.
>

I was wrong. Officers don't get certificates of "Honorable Discharge". I have
a DD-214 that characterizes my service as honorable. My commission is still in
effect.

I do have two certificates of honorable discharge from when I was enlisted.
They came (as I recall) with little flag lapel pins.

Bush's record is incomplete. CBS has an article that says there are still
holes in it; as far as I -know-, no one has come forward in the Alabama
national guard to collect Gary Trudeau's $10,000 for saying they remember Bush.
However, the link on Doonesbury.com to that "contest" says that it has ended,
buit gives no results.

Bush's CO in Alabama -is- clearly on the record as saying that Bush never
reported to him.

Here is a link to where Bush was counseled that failure to perform adequately
in the Guard could result in involuntary call to active duty.

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif

Walt

Walt

Well, it turns out that no one collected Trudeau's $10,000.

CASE CLOSED: Four weeks ago, "Doonesbury" creator Garry Trudeau announced in
his cartoon strip the "Bush Guard Service" contest: "We're offering $10,000
cash to any witness who can definitively corroborate Mr. Bush's claim" that
three decades before he became President, he served in the Alabama National
Guard. "So if you served with Mr. Bush - even if only in the officers' club -
we want to hear from you right now! Why? So we can put this trash story to rest
and get back to the real issues." Well, it turns out that no credible witness
has come forward to claim the prize, so this week Trudeau mailed a personal
check for $10,000 to the USO. "We're extremely grateful for his generosity,"
USO Vice President John Hansen told me yesterday. But has Trudeau's check
cleared? "Oh, I think he's good for it."

-- Lloyd Grove in the New York Daily News 3/19/04

Walt

>>The issue is that he did not fulfil his obligation.
>>> He clearly did not.
>
>He clearly did. www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm
>
>What kind of pathological paranoia causes people to take these
>positions?
>

The facts do. Not one person came forward to collect Trudeau's $10,000 as
having seen Bush in Alabama.

His certificate of service, while characterizing the nature of service as being
honorable, shows he only served 5 years, 4 months and 5 days of a six year
commitment.

What -you- need to show is that Bush did not receive favorable treatment. But
you can't show that, because the Republican smear/cover-up campaign is is full
swing.

You'd think the Bush partisans would have enough sense to just let this drop.

Senator Kerry is a highly decorated WIA veteran of the Viet Nam war, who
volunteered both for the war and for hazardous duty.

The best case scenario for Bush is that he just slid by and did the absolute
-minimum- possible to maintain his commitment -- which he clearly took in order
to avoid the draft.

Walt

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bush's record is incomplete. CBS has an article that says there are still
> holes in it; as far as I -know-, no one has come forward in the Alabama
> national guard to collect Gary Trudeau's $10,000 for saying they
> remember Bush.
>

At least one member of that unit did come forward and stated he remembers
Bush performing office work.

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, it turns out that no one collected Trudeau's $10,000.
>

No one was ever going to collect it.


>
> CASE CLOSED: Four weeks ago, "Doonesbury" creator Garry Trudeau announced
in
> his cartoon strip the "Bush Guard Service" contest: "We're offering
$10,000
> cash to any witness who can definitively corroborate Mr. Bush's claim"
that
> three decades before he became President, he served in the Alabama
National
> Guard. "So if you served with Mr. Bush - even if only in the officers'
club -
> we want to hear from you right now! Why? So we can put this trash story to
rest
> and get back to the real issues." Well, it turns out that no credible
witness
> has come forward to claim the prize, so this week Trudeau mailed a
personal
> check for $10,000 to the USO. "We're extremely grateful for his
generosity,"
> USO Vice President John Hansen told me yesterday. But has Trudeau's check
> cleared? "Oh, I think he's good for it."
>
> -- Lloyd Grove in the New York Daily News 3/19/04
>

At least one member of that unit did come forward and stated he remembered
Bush performing office work.

WalterM140 wrote:

>>> Where is Bush's certificate of Honorable Discharge?
>>
>> I believe I've seen a copy on one posted on the Internet some time ago. The
>> real question is how much influence was exerted by his father the Congressman
>> to
>> get it issued. The answer to that little question seems to be clouded by
>> smoke
>> and mirrors, as our Repug friends are wont to say. Smoke usually coming from
>> fire, I daresay that his Congressional hand is in it somewhere although I
>> doubt
>> that, what with two presidents in the family, the public will ever learn the
>> truth about it.
>>
>> George Z.
>>
>
> I was wrong. Officers don't get certificates of "Honorable Discharge". I
> have a DD-214 that characterizes my service as honorable.

You're right, of course, and I'm embarrassed to admit that I made the same
mistake you did. All I got was a 214 and a special order announcing or
authorizing (I've forgotten the term used) my retirement.

George Z.

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> The facts do.
>

The facts indicate Bush fulfilled his service commitment.


>
> Not one person came forward to collect Trudeau's $10,000 as
> having seen Bush in Alabama.
>

At least one did.

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bush's record is incomplete. CBS has an article that says there are still
> holes in it; as far as I -know-, no one has come forward in the Alabama
> national guard to collect Gary Trudeau's $10,000 for saying they
> remember Bush.
>

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F22924488


Former Guardsman: Bush served with me in Alabama

By the Associated Press

A retired Alabama Air National Guard officer said Friday that he remembers
George Bush showing up for duty in Alabama in 1972, reading safety magazines
and flight manuals in an office as he performed his weekend obligations.
"I saw him each drill period," retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun said in
a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Daytona Beach, Fla.,
where he is preparing to watch this weekend's big NASCAR race.

"He was very aggressive about doing his duty there. He never complained
about it. ... He was very dedicated to what he was doing in the Guard. He
showed up on time and he left at the end of the day."

Calhoun, whose name was supplied to the AP by a Republican close to Bush, is
the first member of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group to recall Bush
distinctly at the Alabama base in the period of 1972-1973. He was the unit's
flight safety officer.

The 69-year-old president of an Atlanta insulation company said Bush showed
up for work at Dannelly Air National Guard Base for drills on at least six
occasions. Bush and Calhoun had both been trained as fighter pilots, and
Calhoun said the two would swap "war stories" and even eat lunch together on
base.

Calhoun is named in 187th unit rosters obtained by the AP as serving under
the deputy commander of operations plans. Bush was in Alabama on non-flying
status.

"He sat in my office most of the time - he would read," Calhoun said. "He
had your training manuals from your aircraft he was flying. He'd study those
some. He'd read safety magazines, which is a common thing for pilots."

Democrats have asked for proof that Bush, then a 1st lieutenant with the
Texas Air National Guard, turned up for duty in Alabama, where Bush had
asked to be assigned while he worked on the U.S. Senate campaign of family
friend Winton "Red" Blount.

Pay and medical records released by the White House this week failed to
quash allegations that Bush shirked his Guard responsibilities. (Related
story: Bush's driving records disclosed)

The 187th's former commander, retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, has
said he doesn't remember Bush ever turning up on base, and more than a dozen
members of the 800-person unit, including its commander, told The Associated
Press this week they have no recollection of Bush. Critics have made much of
the fact that the White House has failed to produce anyone who could
remember seeing Bush there.

Calhoun said he contacted Texas GOP leaders with his story in 2000 when the
issue was raised just before the November general election.

"I got on the phone and got information and called Austin, Texas, and talked
to the Republican campaign. They said I was talking to the campaign
manager," he said. "I told him my story and said I would be glad to provide
information to that effect. At that time they said ... The story is not
true. And we don't think it's got enough weight to stay out as a story.' And
they said, 'But if it does we'll call you back.' And I never heard from them
again."

Last week as the issue raged again, Calhoun sent an e-mail to the White
House offering to tell his story. "I got a response back, one of those
automatic responses," he said. It wasn't until his wife contacted Georgia
GOP officials that Calhoun's name surfaced.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Friday that the White House
was not making any effort to try to locate people who might have served with
Bush. He also accused reporters of trying to raise new lines of questioning,
beyond whether Bush served in Alabama.

Critics have suggested that Bush used his family connections to get the safe
Guard assignment ahead of thousands of others. But Calhoun said Bush never
mentioned his congressman father while they sat together at Dannelly.

"I knew he was working in the senatorial campaign, and I asked him if he was
going to be a politician," said Calhoun, who is a staunch Republican. "And
he said, 'I don't know. Probably.'"

Calhoun has not made any donations to Bush this election season or during
the 2000 season, according to campaign finance records.

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, it turns out that no one collected Trudeau's $10,000.
>
> CASE CLOSED: Four weeks ago, "Doonesbury" creator Garry Trudeau announced
in
> his cartoon strip the "Bush Guard Service" contest: "We're offering
$10,000
> cash to any witness who can definitively corroborate Mr. Bush's claim"
that
> three decades before he became President, he served in the Alabama
National
> Guard. "So if you served with Mr. Bush - even if only in the officers'
club -
> we want to hear from you right now! Why? So we can put this trash story to
rest
> and get back to the real issues." Well, it turns out that no credible
witness
> has come forward to claim the prize, so this week Trudeau mailed a
personal
> check for $10,000 to the USO. "We're extremely grateful for his
generosity,"
> USO Vice President John Hansen told me yesterday. But has Trudeau's check
> cleared? "Oh, I think he's good for it."
>
> -- Lloyd Grove in the New York Daily News 3/19/04
>

Do you have any idea why Trudeau reneged?


http://makeashorterlink.com/?F22924488


Former Guardsman: Bush served with me in Alabama

By the Associated Press

A retired Alabama Air National Guard officer said Friday that he remembers
George Bush showing up for duty in Alabama in 1972, reading safety magazines
and flight manuals in an office as he performed his weekend obligations.
"I saw him each drill period," retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun said in
a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Daytona Beach, Fla.,
where he is preparing to watch this weekend's big NASCAR race.

"He was very aggressive about doing his duty there. He never complained
about it. ... He was very dedicated to what he was doing in the Guard. He
showed up on time and he left at the end of the day."

Calhoun, whose name was supplied to the AP by a Republican close to Bush, is
the first member of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group to recall Bush
distinctly at the Alabama base in the period of 1972-1973. He was the unit's
flight safety officer.

The 69-year-old president of an Atlanta insulation company said Bush showed
up for work at Dannelly Air National Guard Base for drills on at least six
occasions. Bush and Calhoun had both been trained as fighter pilots, and
Calhoun said the two would swap "war stories" and even eat lunch together on
base.

Calhoun is named in 187th unit rosters obtained by the AP as serving under
the deputy commander of operations plans. Bush was in Alabama on non-flying
status.

"He sat in my office most of the time - he would read," Calhoun said. "He
had your training manuals from your aircraft he was flying. He'd study those
some. He'd read safety magazines, which is a common thing for pilots."

Democrats have asked for proof that Bush, then a 1st lieutenant with the
Texas Air National Guard, turned up for duty in Alabama, where Bush had
asked to be assigned while he worked on the U.S. Senate campaign of family
friend Winton "Red" Blount.

Pay and medical records released by the White House this week failed to
quash allegations that Bush shirked his Guard responsibilities. (Related
story: Bush's driving records disclosed)

The 187th's former commander, retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, has
said he doesn't remember Bush ever turning up on base, and more than a dozen
members of the 800-person unit, including its commander, told The Associated
Press this week they have no recollection of Bush. Critics have made much of
the fact that the White House has failed to produce anyone who could
remember seeing Bush there.

Calhoun said he contacted Texas GOP leaders with his story in 2000 when the
issue was raised just before the November general election.

"I got on the phone and got information and called Austin, Texas, and talked
to the Republican campaign. They said I was talking to the campaign
manager," he said. "I told him my story and said I would be glad to provide
information to that effect. At that time they said ... The story is not
true. And we don't think it's got enough weight to stay out as a story.' And
they said, 'But if it does we'll call you back.' And I never heard from them
again."

Last week as the issue raged again, Calhoun sent an e-mail to the White
House offering to tell his story. "I got a response back, one of those
automatic responses," he said. It wasn't until his wife contacted Georgia
GOP officials that Calhoun's name surfaced.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Friday that the White House
was not making any effort to try to locate people who might have served with
Bush. He also accused reporters of trying to raise new lines of questioning,
beyond whether Bush served in Alabama.

Critics have suggested that Bush used his family connections to get the safe
Guard assignment ahead of thousands of others. But Calhoun said Bush never
mentioned his congressman father while they sat together at Dannelly.

"I knew he was working in the senatorial campaign, and I asked him if he was
going to be a politician," said Calhoun, who is a staunch Republican. "And
he said, 'I don't know. Probably.'"

Calhoun has not made any donations to Bush this election season or during
the 2000 season, according to campaign finance records.

I know that Kerry earned four or five medals for bravery under fire or
similar action. Does anyone know how many medals for heroism Cheney
and Bush earned. I heard that it was less than Kerry.

(WalterM140) wrote in message >...
> >> Where is Bush's certificate of Honorable Discharge?
> >
> >I believe I've seen a copy on one posted on the Internet some time ago. The
> >real question is how much influence was exerted by his father the Congressman
> >to
> >get it issued. The answer to that little question seems to be clouded by
> >smoke
> >and mirrors, as our Repug friends are wont to say. Smoke usually coming from
> >fire, I daresay that his Congressional hand is in it somewhere although I
> >doubt
> >that, what with two presidents in the family, the public will ever learn the
> >truth about it.
> >
> >George Z.
> >
>
> I was wrong. Officers don't get certificates of "Honorable Discharge". I have
> a DD-214 that characterizes my service as honorable. My commission is still in
> effect.
>
> I do have two certificates of honorable discharge from when I was enlisted.
> They came (as I recall) with little flag lapel pins.
>
> Bush's record is incomplete. CBS has an article that says there are still
> holes in it; as far as I -know-, no one has come forward in the Alabama
> national guard to collect Gary Trudeau's $10,000 for saying they remember Bush.
> However, the link on Doonesbury.com to that "contest" says that it has ended,
> buit gives no results.
>
> Bush's CO in Alabama -is- clearly on the record as saying that Bush never
> reported to him.
>
> Here is a link to where Bush was counseled that failure to perform adequately
> in the Guard could result in involuntary call to active duty.
>
> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif
>
> Walt
>
> Walt

"Tammy" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I know that Kerry earned four or five medals for bravery under fire or
> similar action. Does anyone know how many medals for heroism Cheney
> and Bush earned. I heard that it was less than Kerry.
>

It appears some of those awards were likely unearned. Have you heard why
Kerry didn't complete his Vietnam service?

Tammy blurted:
>I know that Kerry earned four or five medals for bravery under fire or
>similar action. Does anyone know how many medals for heroism Cheney
>and Bush earned. I heard that it was less than Kerry.

Did you also know that Mr. Kerry also stupidly and recklessly risked his men
and warship to win the medals? But, by gosh he secured that RPG launcher, even
if it was empty.
Plus, consider anyone who defames the Secret Service guy out there to protect
him, due to his own"skill" at snow sports, seems like a real ass who we really
need to run this country.
I also don't like his shoes! They flip flop a lot and are distracting.
Also while we are at it Hienz pickles suck!

oxmoron1
MFE

>From: (WalterM140)
>
>
>>>The issue is that he did not fulfil his obligation.
>>>> He clearly did not.
>>
>>He clearly did. www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm
>>
>>What kind of pathological paranoia causes people to take these
>>positions?
>>
>
>The facts do. Not one person came forward to collect Trudeau's $10,000 as
>having seen Bush in Alabama.

This proves what? People have come forward saying they saw him there. If it
were me I wouldn't accept the money.

>
>His certificate of service, while characterizing the nature of service as
>being
>honorable, shows he only served 5 years, 4 months and 5 days of a six year
>commitment.

Kerry also took an early out. Many people do. I took teriminal leave and
permissive TDY adding up to over 4 months. Does this mean I was let out early?

>
>What -you- need to show is that Bush did not receive favorable treatment.
>But
>you can't show that, because the Republican smear/cover-up campaign is is
>full
> swing.

Ah yes, the "vast right wing conspiracy." Can you prove factually he did
receive special treatment? I mean something beyound "he was the son of a rich
oil man" or some such drivel.

>
>You'd think the Bush partisans would have enough sense to just let this drop.

The people who keep bringing it up are on the other side. Read the thread name.

>
>Senator Kerry is a highly decorated WIA veteran of the Viet Nam war, who
>volunteered both for the war and for hazardous duty.
>
No one has argued that. Funny how the Kerry supporters always bring that up any
time he is criticised about any thing includeing his voting record in the
Senate, isn't it? For every man in the field in Viet Nam there was another
dozen or so in country who wasn't. Was there service any less honourable or
important than theirs?

>The best case scenario for Bush is that he just slid by and did the absolute
>-minimum- possible to maintain his commitment -- which he clearly took in
>order
>to avoid the draft.
>
>Walt

OK, by my volunteering for active duty I avoided the draft too as did all the
other volunteers.

Since guardsmen and reservists DID serve in Viet Nam Bush was at risk. I have
an idea take a look at the number of reservists and guardsmen killed in Viet
Nam. You will find their names on the wall in D.C. if you care to look.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

>From: (WalterM140)

<snip>

> However, the link on Doonesbury.com to that "contest" says that it has
>ended,
> buit gives no results.

Maybe he accepts the fact Bush was there.
>
>Bush's CO in Alabama -is- clearly on the record as saying that Bush never
>reported to him.
>
>Here is a link to where Bush was counseled that failure to perform adequately
>in the Guard could result in involuntary call to active duty.
>
>http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif
>
>Walt
>
Firstly that document is incomplete. Secondly nowhere does it sound like a LOC.
I have written my share of LOCs and the tenor is "you are" not "I am."
Thirdly officers are not enlistees.

As a WAG I'd say that looks more like a letter one would have to sign prior to
entering the Guard.

In any event what is the source of the document and where is the rest of it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
> Kerry also took an early out. Many people do. I took teriminal leave and
> permissive TDY adding up to over 4 months. Does this mean I was let
> out early?
>

" I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into
the
campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst
possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential
campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and
written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning."

"We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have
personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone
who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their
country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting
in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of
that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who
ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people
who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn
against the will of their own aspirations?"

Senator John Kerry, Jan 30, 1992

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:20:22 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:


>
>" I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into
>the
>campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst
>possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential
>campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and
>written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning."

Ahh, yes. That from he who repeatedly inserts Vietnam into the
campaign. How duplicitous.
>
>"We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have
>personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone
>who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their
>country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting
>in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of
>that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who
>ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people
>who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn
>against the will of their own aspirations?"
>
>Senator John Kerry, Jan 30, 1992

Why do I feel this strong urge to regurgitate?

From one of Kerry's accused war criminals...

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
> From one of Kerry's accused war criminals...
>

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others
in that I shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire,
joined in search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these
acts were established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered
this are war criminals."

"I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and
say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over
150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified
to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents
but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of
officers at all levels of command."

John Kerry, April 1971

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 21:28:33 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> From one of Kerry's accused war criminals...
>>
>
>"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others
>in that I shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire,
>joined in search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these
>acts were established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered
>this are war criminals."
>
>"I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and
>say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over
>150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified
>to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents
>but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of
>officers at all levels of command."
>
>John Kerry, April 1971
>

Yeah, ain't war a bitch.

And, wasn't it amazing how many of those "honorably discharged and
....highly decorated..." assholes turned out to be wannabes and
neverweres.

Just last month in Nashville, I met with seven hundred combat aviators
from that conflict who wouldn't urinate on Kerry if he were aflame.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

>From: Ed Rasimus
>
<snip>

>Just last month in Nashville, I met with seven hundred combat aviators
>from that conflict who wouldn't urinate on Kerry if he were aflame.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8


Isn't burning politicians a violation of EPA?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

>>Just last month in Nashville, I met with seven hundred combat aviators
>>from that conflict who wouldn't urinate on Kerry if he were aflame.
>>
>>
>>Ed Rasimus
>>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>>"When Thunder Rolled"
>>Smithsonian Institution Press
>>ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Well is drinking Turpentine first allowed?


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

>"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I believe I've seen a copy on one posted on the Internet some time
>> ago. The real question is how much influence was exerted by his father
>> the Congressman to get it issued.
>>
>
>Well, since his father wasn't a Congressman at the time, the answer has to
>be, "None".
>

Bush was released after 5 years, 4 months and five days of a six year
commitment.

If he didn't get special favor, how did that happen?

Walt

>>The facts do. Not one person came forward to collect Trudeau's $10,000 as
>>having seen Bush in Alabama.
>
>This proves what? People have come forward saying they saw him there. If it
>were me I wouldn't accept the money.

Nobody gets to COLLECT the money. Trudeau was giving it to a charity
of his choice.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

>Did you also know that Mr. Kerry also stupidly and recklessly risked his men
>and warship to win the medals?

Here's the narrative portion of Kerry's fitrep:

"In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG
(Lieutenant Junior Grade) Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics
and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every
opportunity. On one occasion while in tactical command of a three boat
operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly
assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush.
This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIAs.

LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing
and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the
Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training
programs.

During this period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star
medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).

18 Dec 1969"

http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp



Walt

>> Not one person came forward to collect Trudeau's $10,000 as
>> having seen Bush in Alabama.
>>
>
>At least one did.
>

Trudeau donated the money to the USO.

Walt

>Ah yes, the "vast right wing conspiracy."

Yes.

"Donald H. Segretti (born September 17, 1941) was a political operative for the
Nixon White House during the 1970s. Segretti ran a campaign of dirty tricks
against the Democrats. His actions were part of the larger Watergate Scandal.

He went to prison in 1974 after pleading guilty to three misdemeanor counts of
distributing illegal campaign literature. A major part of this was a faked
letter on Edmund Muskie's letterhead falsely alleging that senator Henry
"Scoop" Jackson had had an illegitimate child with a 17-year-old.

Segretti was a lawyer — initially a prosecutor for the military and later as
a civilian. However, his license was suspended for two years following his
conviction. In 1995, he briefly ran for a local judgeship in Orange County,
California. He withdrew from the race shortly after his campign received
publicity, which awakened lingering anger over his involvement in the scandal."


--wikipdeia

"It's no accident that Karl Rove was one of Richard Nixon's moles. Using
techniques developed by his first mentor, dirty-tricks strategist Donald
Segretti, Rove infiltrated Democratic organizations on behalf of Nixon's
infamous 1972 campaign. Rove's formidable talents came to the attention of
George Bush Senior, then incoming Republican National Committee chairman, and
the rest is history. Seven presidential campaigns later, Rove masterminded a
deluge of disinformation against John McCain, whose upset victory in New
Hampshire had given him a shot at the Republican nomination. Word was spread
among South Carolina voters that McCain had fathered a black daughter out of
wedlock (McCain had, in fact, adopted a Bangladeshi girl), that McCain was a
homosexual, that McCain's wife had a drug problem and so on.

Now Rove is masterminding the Bush administration's press strategy, but it's
far more than a press strategy. It's the central strategy for how the public
understands what George W. Bush is doing to and for America. In an important
sense, it is the Bush presidency. Rove's methodology largely explains why
Bush's popularity remains strong despite the unremittingly awful economy
(mounting job losses, weak profits and a three-year stock-market slide) and
despite the shambles of the administration's foreign policy (Osama bin Laden
still at large, al-Qaeda as dangerous as ever, North Korea more menacing than
ever, Israelis and Palestinians as far away from the bargaining table as ever,
anti-Americanism rising across the globe and a pending war in Iraq lacking
clear justification)."

http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/2/reich-r.html

People should be very skeptical of anyone coming forward -now- to support a 30
year old story that the contemporary records do not support.

Walt

>Nobody gets to COLLECT the money. Trudeau was giving it to a charity
>of his choice.

You wouldn't donate $10,000 to the USO if all you had to do was contact Gary
Trudeau with a valid story?

Walt

>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 6/10/2004 3:21 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> I believe I've seen a copy on one posted on the Internet some time
>>> ago. The real question is how much influence was exerted by his father
>>> the Congressman to get it issued.
>>>
>>
>>Well, since his father wasn't a Congressman at the time, the answer has to
>>be, "None".
>>
>
>Bush was released after 5 years, 4 months and five days of a six year
>commitment.
>
>If he didn't get special favor, how did that happen?
>
>Walt

Many people get early outs for various reasons with no political pull. It
happens all the tim. Kerry was let out early to go to school. At the time I
retired in 1994 it could still be done. Ok, so it's a special favour and one
has to apply for it, but what's the big deal? It does happen.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

>>Here is a link to where Bush was counseled that failure to perform
>adequately
>>in the Guard could result in involuntary call to active duty.
>>
>>http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif
>>
>>Walt

>>
>Firstly that document is incomplete. Secondly nowhere does it sound like a
>LOC.
>I have written my share of LOCs and the tenor is "you are" not "I am."
>Thirdly officers are not enlistees.
>
>

Bush did enlist in the Guard. Per the link that someone provided, he did six
weeks of basic.

Actually, the link I provided sounds like to sort of boilerplate CYA language
that every enlistee would sign. Upon reflection, there's no stigma in
signing it, eveyone would sign such a document. Then you couldn't whine that
no one ever told you you could be forced onto involuntary active duty.

>As a WAG I'd say that looks more like a letter one would have to sign prior
>to
>entering the Guard.

You're right.

Walt

WalterM140 wrote:
>> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> I believe I've seen a copy on one posted on the Internet some time
>>> ago. The real question is how much influence was exerted by his father
>>> the Congressman to get it issued.
>>>
>>
>> Well, since his father wasn't a Congressman at the time, the answer has to
>> be, "None".

Even if he wasn't, that doesn't mean that he threw away the phone numbers of all
those people he had influence with when he was in office. That kind of people
would still be susceptible to a bit of informal or indirect pressure.....after
all, none of them could be sure that an out-of-office congressman might not run
for Senator or President some day, and it's always good to have some markers out
for past favors given, isn't it.

Although he was no longer a congressman in 1973, would you care to guess what
position of political influence he occupied at that time? Would you believe
"Chairman of the Republican National Committee"? Do you still think nobody
would listen when he called?

You may think the answer is "none" but politcally less-naive folks would
probably welcome the opportunity to argue the point with you. Alas, the world
of politics is not filled with Boy Scouts.

George Z.

>> Did you also know that Mr. Kerry also stupidly and recklessly risked his men
>> and warship to win the medals?

Isn't it hilarious how "stupidly and recklessly" impressed the awarding
authorities so much that they approved the award of a Silver Star and a Bronze
Star to him? But what do those jerks know, right? They were just Navy captains
and admirals.

George Z.

>> Nobody gets to COLLECT the money. Trudeau was giving it to a charity
>> of his choice.

That's true....the contest rules were that if someone presented credible and
valid evidence of Bush's military service, the money would be donated in his
name to the USO. Here's the rule and, if you don't believe me, I've also
included the link so you can see for yourself:

"Q: Is there some sort of hitch?
A: Well, yes, but it's a hitch for a good cause. The winner won't actually
receive the reward for himself; instead we'll be donating $10,000 in his name to
the USO. That way everyone's a winner, including GBT's tax accountant"

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/bush_guard.html

He only gave it to the USO after unsuccessfully waiting for months for somebody
to come forward with some credible evidence. When nobody did, he turned the
money over to the USO even though there was no winner.

George Z.

On 10 Jun 2004 02:18:52 GMT, (Ron) wrote:

>>>Just last month in Nashville, I met with seven hundred combat aviators
>>>from that conflict who wouldn't urinate on Kerry if he were aflame.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ed Rasimus
>
>Well is drinking Turpentine first allowed?

>Ron

I think they had some in the hospitality suite.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On 10 Jun 2004 08:21:52 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:


>Bush was released after 5 years, 4 months and five days of a six year
>commitment.
>
>If he didn't get special favor, how did that happen?

And Kerry was released from active duty after how long?

Let's put the time in context. The Vietnam War had ended, the
requirements for the military were being cut back. The TANG was
converting from F-102 to F-101 requiring retraining and the training
was longer than Bush' remaining service commitment. The Guard allows
transfers from active to inactive. "Early Out" programs were rampant.

Get over it.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On 10 Jun 2004 10:10:21 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>Here's the narrative portion of Kerry's fitrep:
>
>"In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG
>(Lieutenant Junior Grade) Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics
>and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every
>opportunity. On one occasion while in tactical command of a three boat
>operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly
>assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush.
>This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIAs.
>
>LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing
>and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the
>Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training
>programs.
>
>During this period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star
>medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).
>
>18 Dec 1969"

Did you read these from Swift Boat Commanders on Kerry that I posted a
few days ago?

>
>"We resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam in 1971 and repeated in the book "Tour of Duty." We think those cast an aspersion on all those living and dead, from our unit and other units in Vietnam. We think that he knew he was lying when he made the charges, and we think that they're unsupportable. We intend to bring the truth about that to the American people.

>We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief."

>-- John O'Neill, spokesman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

>"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography. He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. He was a 'loose cannon.' In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included our soldiers,
our marines, our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Senator Kerry is not fit for command."

>-- Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired), chairman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

>"During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families.

>Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant supervision.'"

>-- Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)

>"Thirty-five years ago, many of us fell silent when we came back to the stain of sewage that Mr. Kerry had thrown on us, and all of our colleagues who served over there. I don't intend to be silent today or ever again. Our young men and women who are serving deserve no less."

>-- Andrew Horne

>"In my specific, personal experience in both coastal and river patrols over a 12-month period, I never once saw or heard anything remotely resembling the atrocities described by Senator Kerry. If I had, it would have been my obligation to report them in writing to a higher authority, and I would certainly have done that. If Senator Kerry actually witnessed or participated in these atrocities or, as he described them, 'war crimes,' he was obligated to report them. That he did not until later when it suited his political purposes strikes me as opportunism of the worst kind. That he would malign my service and that of his fellow sailors with no regard for the truth makes him totally unqualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief."

>-- Jeffrey Wainscott

>"I signed that letter because I, too felt a deep sense of betrayal that someone who took the same oath of loyalty as I did as an officer in the United States Navy would abandon his group here (points to group photo) to join this group here (points to VVAW protest photo), and come home and attempt to rally the American public against the effort that this group was so valiantly pursuing.

>It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major battle. We lost the war at home... and at home, John Kerry was the Field General."

>-- Robert Elder

>"My daughters and my wife have read portions of the book 'Tour of Duty.' They wanted to know if I took part in the atrocities described. I do not believe the things that are described happened.

>Let me give you an example. In Brinkley's book, on pages 170 to 171, about something called the 'Bo De massacre' on November 24th of 1968... In Kerry's description of the engagement, first he claimed there were 17 servicemen that were wounded. Three of us were wounded. I was the first..."

>-- Joseph Ponder

>"While in Cam Rahn Bay, he trained on several 24-hour indoctrination missions, and one special skimmer operation with my most senior and trusted Lieutenant. The briefing from some members of that crew the morning after revealed that they had not received any enemy fire, and yet Lt.(jg) Kerry informed me of a wound -- he showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s. It was later reported to me that Lt.(jg) Kerry had fired an M-79, and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline. I do not recall being advised of any medical treatment, and probably said something like 'Forget it.' He later received a Purple Heart for that scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom.

>Lt.(jg) Kerry was allowed to return to the good old USA after 4 months and a few days in-country, and then he proceeded to betray his former shipmates, calling them criminals who were committing atrocities. Today we are here to tell you that just the opposite is true. Our rules of engagement were quite strict, and the officers and men of Swift often did not even return fire when they were under fire if there was a possibility that innocent people -- fishermen, in a lot of cases -- might be hurt or injured. The rules and the good intentions of the men increased the possibility that we might take friendly casualties."

>-- Commander Grant Hibbard, USN (retired)

>"Lt. Kerry returned home from the war to make some outrageous statements and allegations... of numerous criminal acts in violation of the law of war were cited by Kerry, disparaging those who had fought with honor in that conflict. Had war crimes been committed by US forces in Vietnam? Yes, but such acts were few and far between. Yet Lt. Kerry have numerous speeches and testimony before Congress inappropriately leading his audiences to believe that what was only an anomaly in the conduct of America's fighting men was an epidemic. Furthermore, he suggested that they were being encouraged to violated the law of war by those within the chain of command.

>Very specific orders, on file at the Vietnam archives at Texas Tech University, were issued by my father [Admiral Elmo Zumwalt] and others in his chain of command instructing subordinates to act responsibly in preserving the life and property of Vietnamese civilians."

>-- Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, USMC (retired)

>"We look at Vietnam... after all these years it is still languishing in isolated poverty and helplessness and tyranny. This is John Kerry's legacy. I deeply resent John Kerry's using his Swift boat experience, and his betrayal of those who fought there as a stepping-stone to his political ambitions."

>-- Barnard Wolff

>"In a whole year that I spent patrolling, I didn't see anything like a war crime, an atrocity, anything like that. Time and again I saw American fighting men put themselves in graver danger trying to avoid... collateral damage.

>When John Kerry returned to the country, he was sworn in front of Congress. And then he told my family -- my parents, my sister, my brother, my neighbors -- he told everyone I knew and everyone I'd ever know that I and my comrades had committed unspeakable atrocities."

>-- David Wallace

>"I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lt.(jg) Kerry.

>In 1971, '72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains -- there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it."

>-- Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)

>"During the Vietnam War I was Task Force Commander at An Thoi, and my tour of duty was 13 months, from the end of Tet to the beginning of the Vietnamization of the Navy units.

>Now when I went there right after Tet, I was restricted in my movements. I couldn't go much of anyplace because the Vietcong controlled most of the area. When I left, I could go anywhere I wanted, just about. Commerce was booming, the buses were running, trucks were going, the waterways were filled with sampans with goods going to market, but yet in Kerry's biography he says that our operations were a complete failure. He also mentions a formal conference with me, to try to get more air cover and so on. That conference never happened..."

>-- Captain Adrian Lonsdale, USCG (retired)

>"I was in An Thoi from June of '68 to June of '69, covering the whole period that John Kerry was there. I operated in every river, in every canal, and every off-shore patrol area in the 4th Corps area, from Cambodia all the way around to the Bo De River. I never saw, even heard of all of these so-called atrocities and things that we were supposed to have done.

>This is not true. We're not standing for it. We want to set the record straight."

>-- William Shumadine

>"In 1971, when John Kerry spoke out to America, labeling all Vietnam veterans as thugs and murderers, I was shocked and almost brought to my knees, because even though I had served at the same time and same unit, I had never witnessed or participated in any of the events that the Senator had accused us of. I strongly believe that the statements made by the Senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States' efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and their allies, retreated to a life of despair and suicide. Two of my crewmates were among them. For that there is no forgiveness. "

>-- Richard O'Meara

>"My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in '68 and '69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy... if a man like that can't handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?"

>-- Steven Gardner

>"I served in Vietnam as a boat officer from June of 1968 to July of 1969. My service was three months in Coastal Division 13 out of Cat Lo, and nine months with Coastal Division 11 based in An Thoi. John Kerry was in An Thoi the same time I was. I'm here today to express the anger I have harbored for over 33 years, about being accused with my fellow shipmates of war atrocities.

>All I can say is when I leave here today, I'm going down to the Wall to tell my two crew members it's not true, and that they and the other 49 Swiftees who are on the Wall were then and are still now the best."

>-- Robert Brant

>"I never saw, heard of, or participated in any Swift boat crews killing cattle, poisoning crops, or raping and killing civilians as charged by John Kerry, both in his book and in public statements. Since we both operated at the same time, in the same general area, and on the same missions under the same commanders, it is hard to believe his claims of atrocities and poor planning of Sea Lord missions.

>I signed this letter because I feel that he used Swift boat sailors to proclaim his antiwar statements after the war, and now he uses the same Swift boat sailors to support his claims of being a war hero. He cannot have it both ways, and we are here to ask for full disclosure of the proof of his claims."

>-- James Steffes

Your hero called his "brothers in arms" war criminals and accused us
without foundation of atrocities. He gave aid and comfort to the enemy
when half a million Americans were still in harm's way. He's enshrined
in the War Museum in Hanoi for his support of the regime during the
war years.

And, he did it all for political gain. When it suited him to be
anti-war, he was. When it suits him today to be a "hero" of Vietnam,
he dons that mantle.

He is a man without honor.




Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:39:44 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>
>>> Did you also know that Mr. Kerry also stupidly and recklessly risked his men
>>> and warship to win the medals?
>
>Isn't it hilarious how "stupidly and recklessly" impressed the awarding
>authorities so much that they approved the award of a Silver Star and a Bronze
>Star to him? But what do those jerks know, right? They were just Navy captains
>and admirals.
>
>George Z.
>
Dare we bring up LBJ's Silver Star?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's true....the contest rules were that if someone presented credible
> and valid evidence of Bush's military service, the money would be
> donated in his name to the USO. Here's the rule and, if you don't believe
> me, I've also included the link so you can see for yourself:
>
> "Q: Is there some sort of hitch?
> A: Well, yes, but it's a hitch for a good cause. The winner won't actually
> receive the reward for himself; instead we'll be donating $10,000 in his
> name to the USO. That way everyone's a winner, including GBT's tax
> accountant"
>
> http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/bush_guard.html
>

That site states; "That's right, we're offering $10,000 cash! Yours to
either spend or invest in job creation. All you have to do is definitively
prove that George W. Bush fulfilled his duty to country."


>
> He only gave it to the USO after unsuccessfully waiting for months for
> somebody to come forward with some credible evidence. When
> nobody did, he turned the money over to the USO even though there
> was no winner.
>

But someone did come forward with some credible evidence. Did Trudeau make
the donation in the name of John Calhoun or did he renege on his promise?


http://makeashorterlink.com/?F22924488


Former Guardsman: Bush served with me in Alabama

By the Associated Press

A retired Alabama Air National Guard officer said Friday that he remembers
George Bush showing up for duty in Alabama in 1972, reading safety magazines
and flight manuals in an office as he performed his weekend obligations.
"I saw him each drill period," retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun said in
a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Daytona Beach, Fla.,
where he is preparing to watch this weekend's big NASCAR race.

"He was very aggressive about doing his duty there. He never complained
about it. ... He was very dedicated to what he was doing in the Guard. He
showed up on time and he left at the end of the day."

Calhoun, whose name was supplied to the AP by a Republican close to Bush, is
the first member of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group to recall Bush
distinctly at the Alabama base in the period of 1972-1973. He was the unit's
flight safety officer.

The 69-year-old president of an Atlanta insulation company said Bush showed
up for work at Dannelly Air National Guard Base for drills on at least six
occasions. Bush and Calhoun had both been trained as fighter pilots, and
Calhoun said the two would swap "war stories" and even eat lunch together on
base.

Calhoun is named in 187th unit rosters obtained by the AP as serving under
the deputy commander of operations plans. Bush was in Alabama on non-flying
status.

"He sat in my office most of the time - he would read," Calhoun said. "He
had your training manuals from your aircraft he was flying. He'd study those
some. He'd read safety magazines, which is a common thing for pilots."

Democrats have asked for proof that Bush, then a 1st lieutenant with the
Texas Air National Guard, turned up for duty in Alabama, where Bush had
asked to be assigned while he worked on the U.S. Senate campaign of family
friend Winton "Red" Blount.

Pay and medical records released by the White House this week failed to
quash allegations that Bush shirked his Guard responsibilities. (Related
story: Bush's driving records disclosed)

The 187th's former commander, retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, has
said he doesn't remember Bush ever turning up on base, and more than a dozen
members of the 800-person unit, including its commander, told The Associated
Press this week they have no recollection of Bush. Critics have made much of
the fact that the White House has failed to produce anyone who could
remember seeing Bush there.

Calhoun said he contacted Texas GOP leaders with his story in 2000 when the
issue was raised just before the November general election.

"I got on the phone and got information and called Austin, Texas, and talked
to the Republican campaign. They said I was talking to the campaign
manager," he said. "I told him my story and said I would be glad to provide
information to that effect. At that time they said ... The story is not
true. And we don't think it's got enough weight to stay out as a story.' And
they said, 'But if it does we'll call you back.' And I never heard from them
again."

Last week as the issue raged again, Calhoun sent an e-mail to the White
House offering to tell his story. "I got a response back, one of those
automatic responses," he said. It wasn't until his wife contacted Georgia
GOP officials that Calhoun's name surfaced.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Friday that the White House
was not making any effort to try to locate people who might have served with
Bush. He also accused reporters of trying to raise new lines of questioning,
beyond whether Bush served in Alabama.

Critics have suggested that Bush used his family connections to get the safe
Guard assignment ahead of thousands of others. But Calhoun said Bush never
mentioned his congressman father while they sat together at Dannelly.

"I knew he was working in the senatorial campaign, and I asked him if he was
going to be a politician," said Calhoun, who is a staunch Republican. "And
he said, 'I don't know. Probably.'"

Calhoun has not made any donations to Bush this election season or during
the 2000 season, according to campaign finance records.

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Trudeau donated the money to the USO.
>

Did Trudeau make the donation in the name of John Calhoun or did he renege
on his promise?

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> Even if he wasn't, that doesn't mean that he threw away the phone
> numbers of all those people he had influence with when he was in office.
>

Still no evidence that any influence was used though.

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bush was released after 5 years, 4 months and five days of a six year
> commitment.
>
> If he didn't get special favor, how did that happen?
>

It happens all the time.

I was in a TFW in Europe that was transitioning from the F-4D to the F-111F.
As I recall, those that had less than a year to go on their tour were not
going to be retrained on a new weapon system. If they had more than six
months left in the Air Force they would be reassigned to a stateside unit,
if they had less than six months left they were discharged. I'd guess those
that were released early numbered in the hundreds.

I take it you never served in the military.

No. Why don't you fill us in.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message t>...
> "Tammy" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > I know that Kerry earned four or five medals for bravery under fire or
> > similar action. Does anyone know how many medals for heroism Cheney
> > and Bush earned. I heard that it was less than Kerry.
> >
>
> It appears some of those awards were likely unearned. Have you heard why
> Kerry didn't complete his Vietnam service?

"Tammy" > wrote in message
om...
>
> No. Why don't you fill us in.
>

I haven't heard either. It appears Kerry won't talk about it.

The first time you posted this, you were mistaken (as refuted in this
venue).

The second time you posted this, you were a liar (as refuted again in this
venue).

Now that you have posted this untruth a third time, what does that make you?

Steve Swartz




"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> Nobody gets to COLLECT the money. Trudeau was giving it to a charity
> >> of his choice.
>
> That's true....the contest rules were that if someone presented credible
and
> valid evidence of Bush's military service, the money would be donated in
his
> name to the USO. Here's the rule and, if you don't believe me, I've also
> included the link so you can see for yourself:
>
> "Q: Is there some sort of hitch?
> A: Well, yes, but it's a hitch for a good cause. The winner won't actually
> receive the reward for himself; instead we'll be donating $10,000 in his
name to
> the USO. That way everyone's a winner, including GBT's tax accountant"
>
> http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/bush_guard.html
>
> He only gave it to the USO after unsuccessfully waiting for months for
somebody
> to come forward with some credible evidence. When nobody did, he turned
the
> money over to the USO even though there was no winner.
>
> George Z.
>
>

Ed Rasimus > wrote in
:

> On 10 Jun 2004 08:21:52 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:
>
>
>>Bush was released after 5 years, 4 months and five days of a six year
>>commitment.
>>
>>If he didn't get special favor, how did that happen?
>
> And Kerry was released from active duty after how long?
>
> Let's put the time in context. The Vietnam War had ended, the
> requirements for the military were being cut back. The TANG was
> converting from F-102 to F-101 requiring retraining and the training
> was longer than Bush' remaining service commitment. The Guard allows
> transfers from active to inactive. "Early Out" programs were rampant.
>
> Get over it.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>

I got a 6 month "early out" in 1974 from the USAF.I jumped at the chance to
get it,was the first one to apply on my base.(LG Hanscom Fld,Ma.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
k.net:

>
> "Tammy" > wrote in message
> om...
>>
>> No. Why don't you fill us in.
>>
>
> I haven't heard either. It appears Kerry won't talk about it.
>
>

Gee,what's he got to hide?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Gee,what's he got to hide?
>

To be fair, there may be nothing to hide. But not talking about it at all
suggests there is something to hide. With the way his campaign has been
going you can bet that if he believed it would help he'd be talking about it
everywhere.

(WalterM140) wrote:
>>Did he bail early? Alleged, unproven
>No it's not. Follow this link:
>
>http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif
>It shows 5 years, 4 months and 5 days service out of a six year commitment.

This period of the Vietnam era, a lot of people in every
service branch were released early, particularly Reserve or Warrant
officers. It was called a 'drop' and was done as an administrative
matter all the time. A drop of over 180 days is notable, but 90 day
drops were common. If you want to allege influence, it was over the
length of the drop, not over the fact that he got one.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:08:22 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik >
wrote:
>
>I got a 6 month "early out" in 1974 from the USAF.I jumped at the chance to
>get it,was the first one to apply on my base.(LG Hanscom Fld,Ma.)

My advice is don't run for political office.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:39:44 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >>> Did you also know that Mr. Kerry also stupidly and recklessly risked his
men
> >>> and warship to win the medals?
> >
> >Isn't it hilarious how "stupidly and recklessly" impressed the awarding
> >authorities so much that they approved the award of a Silver Star and a
Bronze
> >Star to him? But what do those jerks know, right? They were just Navy
captains
> >and admirals.
> >
> >George Z.
> >
> Dare we bring up LBJ's Silver Star?

When did you start needing my permission? But why do you want to compare a
Texas congressman on active duty with a 23 year old boat driver who, at that
point, had no markers out that he could call on for somebody to run interference
for him? Other than the piece of hardware that evolved, aren't they apples and
oranges? One was a field grade officer with political clout and the other a
green company grade guy. Or am I not remembering it right?

George Z.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:22:48 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:39:44 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>> Did you also know that Mr. Kerry also stupidly and recklessly risked his
>men and warship to win the medals?
>> >
>> >Isn't it hilarious how "stupidly and recklessly" impressed the awarding
>> >authorities so much that they approved the award of a Silver Star and a
>Bronze Star to him? But what do those jerks know, right? They were just Navy
>captains and admirals.
>> >George Z.
>> >
>> Dare we bring up LBJ's Silver Star?
>
>When did you start needing my permission? But why do you want to compare a
>Texas congressman on active duty with a 23 year old boat driver who, at that
>point, had no markers out that he could call on for somebody to run interference
>for him? Other than the piece of hardware that evolved, aren't they apples and
>oranges? One was a field grade officer with political clout and the other a
>green company grade guy. Or am I not remembering it right?
>
>George Z.

I think you aren't remembering it right. LBJ's service was hardly
"active duty" and the SS mission was absurd.

My point was that medals vary. There are a lot of heroic events that
gain no award and a lot of awards that followed minimalist events.

My opinion has always been that medals are often the result of being
in the wrong place at the right time and then doing something stupid.
I'll freely admit that my Silver Star came for a mission that I
shouldn't have even launched on. But, I survived, the target was hit
and a fortuitous positioning of another bird with a strike camera
provided the evidence.

I might add, though, that my SS is in the box and hasn't been thrown
over any fences. You can tell it is mine, because my name is engraved
on the back--which is what they do for presentation.

Many have been questioning the circumstances of Kerry's award, but
that isn't the point of emphasis in my criticism of the man. My gripe
is his conduct afterward which was clearly for political gain and at
the expense of a lot of his "brothers" who were defamed by his
statements.

I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, and served
honorably for a considerably longer period of combat than Kerry.
Please don't expect me to like a man who has accused me and my friends
of the opposite.


>

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
nk.net:

>
> "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> Gee,what's he got to hide?
>>
>
> To be fair, there may be nothing to hide. But not talking about it at
> all suggests there is something to hide. With the way his campaign
> has been going you can bet that if he believed it would help he'd be
> talking about it everywhere.
>
>
>

That's the way I feel;that if it were nothing bad,he's be using it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote

> I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, and served
> honorably for a considerably longer period of combat than Kerry.
> Please don't expect me to like a man who has accused me and my friends
> of the opposite.

Ed...to a lot of these people, just being there makes you guilty of a 'war
crime'.

Pete

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
> My advice is don't run for political office.
>

Well, not as a Republican anyway.

>>It shows 5 years, 4 months and 5 days service out of a six year commitment.

It's amazing what people can believe if they want to believe it.

Bush served 11 months in the reserves after he was separated from the
National Guard. He served his six years, plus seven months.

In much the same way, I served six years in the reserves after I was
separated from the U.S. Army, to complete the then-eight-year
obligation.

Your discharge comes in the mail some time later. In my case, my name
was misspelled, probably by somebody with the mental acuity of the
poster quoted above.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:22:48 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:39:44 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you also know that Mr. Kerry also stupidly and recklessly risked his
>>> men and warship to win the medals?
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it hilarious how "stupidly and recklessly" impressed the awarding
>>>>> authorities so much that they approved the award of a Silver Star and a
>>> Bronze Star to him? But what do those jerks know, right? They were just
>>> Navy captains and admirals.
>>>>> George Z.
>>>>>
>>>> Dare we bring up LBJ's Silver Star?
>>>
>>> When did you start needing my permission? But why do you want to compare a
>>> Texas congressman on active duty with a 23 year old boat driver who, at that
>>> point, had no markers out that he could call on for somebody to run
>>> interference for him? Other than the piece of hardware that evolved,
>>> aren't they apples and oranges? One was a field grade officer with
>>> political clout and the other a green company grade guy. Or am I not
>>> remembering it right?
>>>
>>> George Z.
>>
>> I think you aren't remembering it right. LBJ's service was hardly
>> "active duty" and the SS mission was absurd.

No argument there on either account. My point was that something like that
could and obviously did happen because the person involved had considerable
political clout and used it to get what he wanted.

>> My point was that medals vary. There are a lot of heroic events that
>> gain no award and a lot of awards that followed minimalist events.

No argument there, either. So let's take SSs, both his and yours, off the table
for discussion. Don't ask anyone to defend his and you don't need to defend
yours.

(Snip)
>> ......My gripe is his conduct afterward which was clearly for political gain
and at
>> the expense of a lot of his "brothers" who were defamed by his statements.

You've articulated the views of those in opposition to his politics admirably.
Unfortunately, there are two sides to every coin and facts are only rarely
absolute. Those who agree with his politics might just as convincingly argue
that what he did was with the sincere intention of saving American lives by
getting our nation out of a war that we clearly were never going to win.
>>
>> I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, .....

If, in your entire career flying bomb-carrying combat aircraft, you ever
jettisoned your bomb load for whatever reason on other than your assigned
bona-fide target (let's say in a free fire zone), there are some who might make
the argument that you most certainly did commit either an atrocity or a war
crime if your bombs landed on innocent enemy civilians. I personally don't care
to pursue that point, but you ought not be shocked to learn that some people
might, and they're not necessarily unpatriotic because they feel that way.

>> .....and served honorably for a considerably longer period of combat than
Kerry.

Length of service is supposed to prove what? That your two years was worth more
than the poor sod who stepped on a land mine his first day in theater and lost
two legs and an arm? Length of service ought play no part in the equation, and
I can't help but think that you must be getting a little desperate if you feel
obliged to introduce it into the discussion.

>> Please don't expect me to like a man who has accused me and my friends of the
opposite.

I don't expect you to like him, and you obviously don't. That's always been
your privilege and it remains so. And it's everybody else's privilege as well.

George Z.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:15:41 GMT, "Pete" > wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>
>> I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, and served
>> honorably for a considerably longer period of combat than Kerry.
>> Please don't expect me to like a man who has accused me and my friends
>> of the opposite.
>
>Ed...to a lot of these people, just being there makes you guilty of a 'war
>crime'.
>
>Pete
>
And, those people don't mean squat to me. The ones that count are the
ones who know what went on during those times.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:59:56 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>>> I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, .....
>
>If, in your entire career flying bomb-carrying combat aircraft, you ever
>jettisoned your bomb load for whatever reason on other than your assigned
>bona-fide target (let's say in a free fire zone), there are some who might make
>the argument that you most certainly did commit either an atrocity or a war
>crime if your bombs landed on innocent enemy civilians. I personally don't care
>to pursue that point, but you ought not be shocked to learn that some people
>might, and they're not necessarily unpatriotic because they feel that way.

"War crimes" need to be defined as violations of international accords
regarding the conduct of armed conflict. We can't ascribe the term to
whatever offends our particular sensibilities or suits our political
needs of the moment.

Jettisoning weapons in emergencies, for personal defense, etc, is NOT
a war crime. There is considerable difference between jettisoning a
weapons load and targeting innocents. One is acknowledged as an
unavoidable risk of a combat zone while the other is most assuredly
proscribed.

A "free-fire zone" is, in its entirety an area of unrestricted weapons
employment with only small exceptions, such as hospitals, refugee
camps, churches (religious buildings), and white flags exempt.
Delivering in a free-fire zone is not a war crime.

Certainly there are some who "might make the argument" that I "most
certainly did commit either an atrocity or a war crime (that's either
an interesting distinction or a redundancy) IF your bombs landed on
innocent enemy (oxymoron???) civilians." But making the argument isn't
following the definition of a war crime. Some might even accuse the
military of genocide or wholesale murder, but they would be employing
a despicable level of hyperbole.

The purpose of military operations is to "kill people and break
things". Doing anything less is a sure route to defeat.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

>Subject: Re: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 6/11/2004 7:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:15:41 GMT, "Pete" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>>
>>> I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, and served
>>> honorably for a considerably longer period of combat than Kerry.
>>> Please don't expect me to like a man who has accused me and my friends
>>> of the opposite.
>>
>>Ed...to a lot of these people, just being there makes you guilty of a 'war
>>crime'.
>>
>>Pete
>>
>And, those people don't mean squat to me. The ones that count are the
>ones who know what went on during those times.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>
Is it true that Bush hid behind his dads apron strings in Texas while Kerry was
at war?

On 11 Jun 2004 15:13:35 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
wrote:

>Is it true that Bush hid behind his dads apron strings in Texas while Kerry was
>at war?

Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

(OXMORON1) wrote in message >...
> Tammy blurted:
> >I know that Kerry earned four or five medals for bravery under fire or
> >similar action. Does anyone know how many medals for heroism Cheney
> >and Bush earned. I heard that it was less than Kerry.
>
> Did you also know that Mr. Kerry also stupidly and recklessly risked his men
> and warship to win the medals? But, by gosh he secured that RPG launcher, even
> if it was empty.
> Plus, consider anyone who defames the Secret Service guy out there to protect
> him, due to his own"skill" at snow sports, seems like a real ass who we really
> need to run this country.
> I also don't like his shoes! They flip flop a lot and are distracting.
> Also while we are at it Hienz pickles suck!
>
> oxmoron1
> MFE

So "Heroism in battle" is the same as being stupid and reckless. But
Bush is stupid and reckless, and didn't earn any medals.

> Plus, consider anyone who defames the Secret Service guy out there to protect
> him, due to his own"skill" at snow sports, seems like a real ass who we really

I believe that this rumor turned out to be yet another unsubstantiated
attack job by the GOPs. Do you have a legitimate source for this?

> I also don't like his shoes! They flip flop a lot and are distracting.
I've never seen his shoes. I'm more interested in what a candidate
says and does than what kind of shoes he/she wears. But maybe you are
right. Considering Bush's screwups, maybe Bush should run on his shoes
(or at least in them).

> Also while we are at it Hienz pickles suck!
I think I'll agree with you on this one (although I would probably
spell it "Heinz"). I bet they taste a lot better than Bush and
Cheney's oil. Perhaps Kerry should send Bush a case of pickles.
They're a lot safer that pretzels or whatever the current euphamism
for beer is.

>Subject: Re: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 6/11/2004 11:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 11 Jun 2004 15:13:35 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
>wrote:
>
>>Is it true that Bush hid behind his dads apron strings in Texas while Kerry
>was
>>at war?
>
>Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"

How many Purple Hearts do you have? Is ir true you are a warrior who lost his
war?

>Subject: Re: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 6/11/2004 11:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:59:56 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:
>
>>>> I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, .....
>>
>>If, in your entire career flying bomb-carrying combat aircraft, you ever
>>jettisoned your bomb load for whatever reason on other than your assigned
>>bona-fide target (let's say in a free fire zone), there are some who might
>make
>>the argument that you most certainly did commit either an atrocity or a war
>>crime if your bombs landed on innocent enemy civilians. I personally don't
>care
>>to pursue that point, but you ought not be shocked to learn that some people
>>might, and they're not necessarily unpatriotic because they feel that way.
>
>"War crimes" need to be defined as violations of international accords
>regarding the conduct of armed conflict. We can't ascribe the term to
>whatever offends our particular sensibilities or suits our political
>needs of the moment.
>
>Jettisoning weapons in emergencies, for personal defense, etc, is NOT
>a war crime. There is considerable difference between jettisoning a
>weapons load and targeting innocents. One is acknowledged as an
>unavoidable risk of a combat zone while the other is most assuredly
>proscribed.
>
>A "free-fire zone" is, in its entirety an area of unrestricted weapons
>employment with only small exceptions, such as hospitals, refugee
>camps, churches (religious buildings), and white flags exempt.
>Delivering in a free-fire zone is not a war crime.
>
>Certainly there are some who "might make the argument" that I "most
>certainly did commit either an atrocity or a war crime (that's either
>an interesting distinction or a redundancy) IF your bombs landed on
>innocent enemy (oxymoron???) civilians." But making the argument isn't
>following the definition of a war crime. Some might even accuse the
>military of genocide or wholesale murder, but they would be employing
>a despicable level of hyperbole.
>
>The purpose of military operations is to "kill people and break
>things". Doing anything less is a sure route to defeat.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"

As an expert on defeat, why did you get your ass beaten in Viet Nam?

>Subject: Re: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 6/11/2004 11:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 11 Jun 2004 15:13:35 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
>wrote:
>
>>Is it true that Bush hid behind his dads apron strings in Texas while Kerry
>was
>>at war?
>
>Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?
>
>
>Ed Rasimus

Is it true that Bush hid behind his dads apron strings in Texas while Kerry was
at war? ANSWER THE QUESTION

BuffyToU "asked"
>So "Heroism in battle" is the same as being stupid and reckless.

Heroism is one thing, going against policy and beaching/grounding your boat in
an area known to have recently contained enemy troops, to recover an empty RPG
launcher is stupid and endangers your crew. This is leadership?

Oxmoron1

>From: (Lisakbernacchia)
>Date: 6/11/2004 11:45 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Subject: Re: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>Date: 6/11/2004 11:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>On 11 Jun 2004 15:13:35 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Is it true that Bush hid behind his dads apron strings in Texas while Kerry
>>was
>>>at war?
>>
>>Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?
>>
>>
>>Ed Rasimus
>
>Is it true that Bush hid behind his dads apron strings in Texas while Kerry
>was
>at war? ANSWER THE QUESTION

Why should he? You have already made up your mind despite the facts.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On 11 Jun 2004 16:40:05 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
wrote:

>>Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?
>>
>>
>>Ed Rasimus
>>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>>"When Thunder Rolled"
>
>How many Purple Hearts do you have? Is ir true you are a warrior who lost his
>war?

I have no Purple Hearts. The idea is to kill or wound the enemy
without being killed or wounded yourself. You might do a quick rerun
of George C. Scott's Patton speech, pay attention to the part about
"making the other poor, dumb ******* die for his country."

I take great pride in being acknowledged as a warrior. Thank you for
that. No, I lost no wars. I returned a winner along with hundreds of
other warriors.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On 11 Jun 2004 16:45:51 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
wrote:

>>Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?
>>
>>
>>Ed Rasimus
>
>Is it true that Bush hid behind his dads apron strings in Texas while Kerry was
>at war? ANSWER THE QUESTION

No, it is not true.

For details, you might want to go back and read the thread.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 6/11/2004 12:08 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 11 Jun 2004 16:40:05 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
>wrote:
>
>>>Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?
>>>
>>>
>>>Ed Rasimus
>>>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>>>"When Thunder Rolled"
>>
>>How many Purple Hearts do you have? Is ir true you are a warrior who lost
>his
>>war?
>
>I have no Purple Hearts. The idea is to kill or wound the enemy
>without being killed or wounded yourself. You might do a quick rerun
>of George C. Scott's Patton speech, pay attention to the part about
>"making the other poor, dumb ******* die for his country."
>
>I take great pride in being acknowledged as a warrior. Thank you for
>that. No, I lost no wars. I returned a winner along with hundreds of
>other warriors.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed, please make that hundreds of thousands.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Lisakbernacchia" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
> >From: Ed Rasimus
> >Date: 6/11/2004 11:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:59:56 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>> I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, .....
> >>
> >>If, in your entire career flying bomb-carrying combat aircraft, you ever
> >>jettisoned your bomb load for whatever reason on other than your
assigned
> >>bona-fide target (let's say in a free fire zone), there are some who
might
> >make
> >>the argument that you most certainly did commit either an atrocity or a
war
> >>crime if your bombs landed on innocent enemy civilians. I personally
don't
> >care
> >>to pursue that point, but you ought not be shocked to learn that some
people
> >>might, and they're not necessarily unpatriotic because they feel that
way.
> >
> >"War crimes" need to be defined as violations of international accords
> >regarding the conduct of armed conflict. We can't ascribe the term to
> >whatever offends our particular sensibilities or suits our political
> >needs of the moment.
> >
> >Jettisoning weapons in emergencies, for personal defense, etc, is NOT
> >a war crime. There is considerable difference between jettisoning a
> >weapons load and targeting innocents. One is acknowledged as an
> >unavoidable risk of a combat zone while the other is most assuredly
> >proscribed.
> >
> >A "free-fire zone" is, in its entirety an area of unrestricted weapons
> >employment with only small exceptions, such as hospitals, refugee
> >camps, churches (religious buildings), and white flags exempt.
> >Delivering in a free-fire zone is not a war crime.
> >
> >Certainly there are some who "might make the argument" that I "most
> >certainly did commit either an atrocity or a war crime (that's either
> >an interesting distinction or a redundancy) IF your bombs landed on
> >innocent enemy (oxymoron???) civilians." But making the argument isn't
> >following the definition of a war crime. Some might even accuse the
> >military of genocide or wholesale murder, but they would be employing
> >a despicable level of hyperbole.
> >
> >The purpose of military operations is to "kill people and break
> >things". Doing anything less is a sure route to defeat.
> >
> >
> >Ed Rasimus
> >Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> >"When Thunder Rolled"
>
> As an expert on defeat, why did you get your ass beaten in Viet Nam?

He didn't. And you are hereby plonked for your demonstrated stupidity.

Brooks

"Lisakbernacchia" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is it true that Bush hid behind his dads apron strings in Texas while
Kerry was
> at war?
>

No.

"Lisakbernacchia" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is it true that Bush hid behind his dads apron strings in Texas while
Kerry was
> at war? ANSWER THE QUESTION
>

The answer is NO.

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:59:56 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
>>>> I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, .....
>>
>> If, in your entire career flying bomb-carrying combat aircraft, you ever
>> jettisoned your bomb load for whatever reason on other than your assigned
>> bona-fide target (let's say in a free fire zone), there are some who might
>> make the argument that you most certainly did commit either an atrocity or a
>> war crime if your bombs landed on innocent enemy civilians. I personally
>> don't care to pursue that point, but you ought not be shocked to learn that
>> some people might, and they're not necessarily unpatriotic because they feel
>> that way.
>
> "War crimes" need to be defined as violations of international accords
> regarding the conduct of armed conflict. We can't ascribe the term to
> whatever offends our particular sensibilities or suits our political
> needs of the moment.
>
> Jettisoning weapons in emergencies, for personal defense, etc, is NOT
> a war crime. There is considerable difference between jettisoning a
> weapons load and targeting innocents. One is acknowledged as an
> unavoidable risk of a combat zone while the other is most assuredly
> proscribed.
>
> A "free-fire zone" is, in its entirety an area of unrestricted weapons
> employment with only small exceptions, such as hospitals, refugee
> camps, churches (religious buildings), and white flags exempt.
> Delivering in a free-fire zone is not a war crime.
>
> Certainly there are some who "might make the argument" that I "most
> certainly did commit either an atrocity or a war crime (that's either
> an interesting distinction or a redundancy) IF your bombs landed on
> innocent enemy (oxymoron???) civilians." But making the argument isn't
> following the definition of a war crime. Some might even accuse the
> military of genocide or wholesale murder, but they would be employing
> a despicable level of hyperbole.
>
> The purpose of military operations is to "kill people and break
> things". Doing anything less is a sure route to defeat.

Ed, I expected you to argue all of the points I posed as a matter of
self-defense, and you didn't disappoint me. The point that I was trying to
make, and it does not require a response from you, was that there are people who
don't see things the way you do, and they're not necessarily wrong just because
they differ with you.

I could argue some of the points you make, as for example your referring to
"innocent enemy (oxymoron???) civilians", by asking how you would categorize
the three day or week or month old Vietnamese infant blown apart by one of your
jettisoned weapons in his or her own home, but I'll let others more qualified
than I deal with that.

George Z.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:00:09 -0400, George Z. Bush wrote:

> Ed, I expected you to argue all of the points I posed as a matter of
> self-defense, and you didn't disappoint me. The point that I was trying to
> make, and it does not require a response from you, was that there are people who
> don't see things the way you do, and they're not necessarily wrong just because
> they differ with you.

But sometimes they *are* necessarily wrong. People arguing that something
is a war crime when what they're arguing about doesn't meet that definition
means those people are wrong. Period.

--

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2004 16:40:05 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
> wrote:
>
>>> Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?
>>>
>>>
>>> Ed Rasimus
>>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>>> "When Thunder Rolled"
>>
>> How many Purple Hearts do you have? Is ir true you are a warrior who lost his
>> war?
>
> I have no Purple Hearts. The idea is to kill or wound the enemy
> without being killed or wounded yourself. You might do a quick rerun
> of George C. Scott's Patton speech, pay attention to the part about
> "making the other poor, dumb ******* die for his country."
>
> I take great pride in being acknowledged as a warrior. Thank you for
> that. No, I lost no wars. I returned a winner along with hundreds of
> other warriors.


You lost no wars? I was under the impression that after we left that sad,
unfortunate country, the only thing we had to show for our efforts was that big,
black wall in Washington and a grievously divided nation that apparently exists
to this day. What was it that we supposedly won? We must have won something
since you claim that you didn't lose any wars. What was it?
Territory? Reparations? An indigenous Vietnamese government to our political
liking? What did we get out of it as "victors"?

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> > On 11 Jun 2004 16:40:05 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ed Rasimus
> >>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> >>> "When Thunder Rolled"
> >>
> >> How many Purple Hearts do you have? Is ir true you are a warrior who
lost his
> >> war?
> >
> > I have no Purple Hearts. The idea is to kill or wound the enemy
> > without being killed or wounded yourself. You might do a quick rerun
> > of George C. Scott's Patton speech, pay attention to the part about
> > "making the other poor, dumb ******* die for his country."
> >
> > I take great pride in being acknowledged as a warrior. Thank you for
> > that. No, I lost no wars. I returned a winner along with hundreds of
> > other warriors.
>
>
> You lost no wars? I was under the impression that after we left that sad,
> unfortunate country, the only thing we had to show for our efforts was
that big,
> black wall in Washington and a grievously divided nation that apparently
exists
> to this day. What was it that we supposedly won? We must have won
something
> since you claim that you didn't lose any wars. What was it?
> Territory? Reparations? An indigenous Vietnamese government to our
political
> liking? What did we get out of it as "victors"?
>
> George Z.
>
>

The United States certainly did not achieve our political objectives in
Vietnam. On the other hand, it is a stretch to say the US lost the war
since it won all the military actions, and left several years before North
Vietnam overran the south. Finally, if you have been to Vietnam recently,
as I have, you would be hard pressed to say they won, or it was a Pyrrhic
victory at best.

Jarg

In article >,
(Lisakbernacchia) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
> >From: Ed Rasimus
> >Date: 6/11/2004 11:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >On 11 Jun 2004 15:13:35 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Is it true that Bush hid behind his dads apron strings in Texas while Kerry
> >was
> >>at war?
> >
> >Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?
> >
> >
> >Ed Rasimus
>
> Is it true that Bush hid behind his dads apron strings in Texas while Kerry
> was at war? ANSWER THE QUESTION

Why should he bother? You're not interested in the answer, much less
anything resembling truth.

Yeff wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:00:09 -0400, George Z. Bush wrote:
>
>> Ed, I expected you to argue all of the points I posed as a matter of
>> self-defense, and you didn't disappoint me. The point that I was trying to
>> make, and it does not require a response from you, was that there are people
>> who don't see things the way you do, and they're not necessarily wrong just
>> because they differ with you.
>
> But sometimes they *are* necessarily wrong. People arguing that something
> is a war crime when what they're arguing about doesn't meet that definition
> means those people are wrong. Period.

You might be right and you might be wrong, and putting "Period" at the end of
your comment doesn't mean that the matter's been decided. You might wish it'd
be that way, but that's not the way it works.

George Z.

>Subject: Re: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
>From: "George Z. Bush"
>Date: 6/11/2004 4:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> On 11 Jun 2004 16:40:05 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ed Rasimus
>>>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>>>> "When Thunder Rolled"
>>>
>>> How many Purple Hearts do you have? Is ir true you are a warrior who lost
>his
>>> war?
>>
>> I have no Purple Hearts. The idea is to kill or wound the enemy
>> without being killed or wounded yourself. You might do a quick rerun
>> of George C. Scott's Patton speech, pay attention to the part about
>> "making the other poor, dumb ******* die for his country."
>>
>> I take great pride in being acknowledged as a warrior. Thank you for
>> that. No, I lost no wars. I returned a winner along with hundreds of
>> other warriors.
>
>
>You lost no wars? I was under the impression that after we left that sad,
>unfortunate country, the only thing we had to show for our efforts was that
>big,
>black wall in Washington and a grievously divided nation that apparently
>exists
>to this day. What was it that we supposedly won? We must have won something
>since you claim that you didn't lose any wars. What was it?
>Territory? Reparations? An indigenous Vietnamese government to our
>political
>liking? What did we get out of it as "victors"?
>
>George Z.

They kicked our ass. Rasimus hasn't tthe guts to admit it.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:13:08 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>You lost no wars? I was under the impression that after we left that sad,
>unfortunate country, the only thing we had to show for our efforts was that big,
>black wall in Washington and a grievously divided nation that apparently exists
>to this day. What was it that we supposedly won? We must have won something
>since you claim that you didn't lose any wars. What was it?
>Territory? Reparations? An indigenous Vietnamese government to our political
>liking? What did we get out of it as "victors"?
>
>George Z.
>

I didn't lose. My country lost a lot, but it wasn't the war. It was
pride in being an American and a fundamental belief in democracy. It
was a belief that we were morally anchored and the communists (and now
the jihadist fundamentalist muslims) were wrong. It was the firm
conviction that we were not the reason for injustice and poverty in
this world, but rather the source of a better way.

Take a look, if you choose at Vietnam today. If you see a communist
victory there, you aren't looking very closely. They are a flourishing
capitalist society. They are trading globally, entertaining tourists
from around the world, and the new version of the Hanoi Hilton--the
real hotel chain--advertises an "American breakfast" as included with
the room rate.

What did we get out of it? We changed the way we organize, train and
fight our wars. We lost one F-105 for every 65 sorties over N. Vietnam
in '66 and '67. We lost one fixed wing aircraft for every 3500 sorties
during Desert Storm. We lost one fixed wing aircraft...period, in
Iraqi Freedom for 16,500 sorties. We learned some lessons.

Stop feeling guilty, George. We're Americans and have a right to be
proud.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Lisakbernacchia" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
> >From: "George Z. Bush"
> >Date: 6/11/2004 4:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >> On 11 Jun 2004 16:40:05 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Is it true that you can't read a usenet thread?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ed Rasimus
> >>>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> >>>> "When Thunder Rolled"
> >>>
> >>> How many Purple Hearts do you have? Is ir true you are a warrior who
lost
> >his
> >>> war?
> >>
> >> I have no Purple Hearts. The idea is to kill or wound the enemy
> >> without being killed or wounded yourself. You might do a quick rerun
> >> of George C. Scott's Patton speech, pay attention to the part about
> >> "making the other poor, dumb ******* die for his country."
> >>
> >> I take great pride in being acknowledged as a warrior. Thank you for
> >> that. No, I lost no wars. I returned a winner along with hundreds of
> >> other warriors.
> >
> >
> >You lost no wars? I was under the impression that after we left that
sad,
> >unfortunate country, the only thing we had to show for our efforts was
that
> >big,
> >black wall in Washington and a grievously divided nation that apparently
> >exists
> >to this day. What was it that we supposedly won? We must have won
something
> >since you claim that you didn't lose any wars. What was it?
> >Territory? Reparations? An indigenous Vietnamese government to our
> >political
> >liking? What did we get out of it as "victors"?
> >
> >George Z.
>
> They kicked our ass. Rasimus hasn't tthe guts to admit it.
>

You have a very different notion of ass kicking than I do! Do a comparison
between the US and Vietnam, both during the war and today, and I think it
will be pretty clear who is on top!

Jarg

Lisakbernacchia wrote:

> They kicked our ass. Rasimus hasn't tthe guts to admit it.


They may have kicked your ass, Lisa my dear, but Ed and I came home winners,
just as we left.

LBJ, MacNamara and a host of other losers just like yourelf lost that war. It is
also untrue that the country has been divided ever since. Only a relatively few
unrepentant fools, as they have grown older, still hold on to their sophomoric
and unquestioning hatred of the flag and the people who defend it.



Jack

In message >, Jarg
> writes
>"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...

>> You lost no wars? I was under the impression that after we left that sad,
>> unfortunate country, the only thing we had to show for our efforts was
>that big,
>> black wall in Washington and a grievously divided nation that apparently
>exists
>> to this day. What was it that we supposedly won?

>The United States certainly did not achieve our political objectives in
>Vietnam. On the other hand, it is a stretch to say the US lost the war
>since it won all the military actions, and left several years before North
>Vietnam overran the south.

But wasn't the whole point of the US presence to prevent the North
grabbing the South? They kept fighting until the US withdrew, then moved
on to achieve their goal. Sounds like a success to me, even if the end
result wasn't the Socialist Worker's Paradise they'd hoped for.


You're absolutely right on the military success side (though some of the
victories were expensive: on the other hand, there were lessons learned
and put to use) but the final objective - an independent non-communist
South Vietnam - was lost.


There's a supposed a quote I'd like to get a proper source for (and to
know it correctly) that goes along the lines of a senior North
Vietnamese being told that the US never lost a battle in Vietnam, and
replying that this is quite true, but also quite irrelevant. (It's got a
lot of resonance for current "effects-based" doctrine)

>Finally, if you have been to Vietnam recently,
>as I have, you would be hard pressed to say they won, or it was a Pyrrhic
>victory at best.

Perhaps: but by that argument, wouldn't the US victory be even greater
if back in the late 1940s it had told the French to get out of their
ex-colony and offered generous aid and support to Ho Chi Minh? Communist
or not, I'll bet he'd rather have sold rubber to Firestone and Goodyear
for hard dollars than to the USSR for roubles. (Fifty years of hindsight
applies, of course)


Anyone saying there's an easy simple answer to this discussion hasn't
studied it :)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
>"War crimes" need to be defined as violations of international accords
>regarding the conduct of armed conflict. We can't ascribe the term to
>whatever offends our particular sensibilities or suits our political
>needs of the moment.

>Certainly there are some who "might make the argument" that I "most
>certainly did commit either an atrocity or a war crime (that's either
>an interesting distinction or a redundancy) IF your bombs landed on
>innocent enemy (oxymoron???) civilians."

As I understand it, there would be a need to prove either recklessness
or intent for there to be a crime. Proving "Intent" would be difficult
because the prosecution would have to show that you deliberately
intended your jettisoned weapons/tanks/racks to strike the victim,
knowing they held protected status. (Not necessarily that you aimed at a
particular person, but that you knowingly and deliberately dumped them
where they would be more likely to hurt noncombatants than if they were
dumped elsewhere)


Proving "recklessness" is easier in some ways because you just had to be
careless about the danger: on the other hand, it requires that you be
shown to owe a duty of care to the victims.

I'm not a lawyer, nor an expert on military law: but from the limited
study summarised above, I don't think there's a case against Mr Rasimus.


For example, one example I've heard of his "jettisoning ordnance
recklessly" involved him cleaning up his aircraft to avoid an attacking
enemy fighter, and aiming what he dropped in the direction of an AAA
site that was also engaging him. I'll be *very* interested in meeting
the lawyer who can show that a pilot owes a "duty of care" to gunners
trying to shoot him down!

>The purpose of military operations is to "kill people and break
>things". Doing anything less is a sure route to defeat.

Too much can be bad, as can too little. Trouble is, you never get the
answers: you just find out whether you got it "right enough" or not.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:59:56 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>>> I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, .....
> >>
> >> If, in your entire career flying bomb-carrying combat aircraft, you
ever
> >> jettisoned your bomb load for whatever reason on other than your
assigned
> >> bona-fide target (let's say in a free fire zone), there are some who
might
> >> make the argument that you most certainly did commit either an atrocity
or a
> >> war crime if your bombs landed on innocent enemy civilians. I
personally
> >> don't care to pursue that point, but you ought not be shocked to learn
that
> >> some people might, and they're not necessarily unpatriotic because they
feel
> >> that way.
> >
> > "War crimes" need to be defined as violations of international accords
> > regarding the conduct of armed conflict. We can't ascribe the term to
> > whatever offends our particular sensibilities or suits our political
> > needs of the moment.
> >
> > Jettisoning weapons in emergencies, for personal defense, etc, is NOT
> > a war crime. There is considerable difference between jettisoning a
> > weapons load and targeting innocents. One is acknowledged as an
> > unavoidable risk of a combat zone while the other is most assuredly
> > proscribed.
> >
> > A "free-fire zone" is, in its entirety an area of unrestricted weapons
> > employment with only small exceptions, such as hospitals, refugee
> > camps, churches (religious buildings), and white flags exempt.
> > Delivering in a free-fire zone is not a war crime.
> >
> > Certainly there are some who "might make the argument" that I "most
> > certainly did commit either an atrocity or a war crime (that's either
> > an interesting distinction or a redundancy) IF your bombs landed on
> > innocent enemy (oxymoron???) civilians." But making the argument isn't
> > following the definition of a war crime. Some might even accuse the
> > military of genocide or wholesale murder, but they would be employing
> > a despicable level of hyperbole.
> >
> > The purpose of military operations is to "kill people and break
> > things". Doing anything less is a sure route to defeat.
>
> Ed, I expected you to argue all of the points I posed as a matter of
> self-defense, and you didn't disappoint me. The point that I was trying
to
> make, and it does not require a response from you, was that there are
people who
> don't see things the way you do, and they're not necessarily wrong just
because
> they differ with you.
>
> I could argue some of the points you make, as for example your referring
to
> "innocent enemy (oxymoron???) civilians", by asking how you would
categorize
> the three day or week or month old Vietnamese infant blown apart by one of
your
> jettisoned weapons in his or her own home, but I'll let others more
qualified
> than I deal with that.

Did you really retire from the military? It is hard to believe that you did,
based upon the above drivel. War results in death, and sometimes the deaths
are of noncombatants. As Ed has already told you, however, intent matters.
Even you, with your obvious incapacity for handling reality, should be able
to get a grasp of that incontrovertable fact.

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Jarg
> > writes
> >"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> You lost no wars? I was under the impression that after we left that
sad,
> >> unfortunate country, the only thing we had to show for our efforts was
> >that big,
> >> black wall in Washington and a grievously divided nation that
apparently
> >exists
> >> to this day. What was it that we supposedly won?
>
> >The United States certainly did not achieve our political objectives in
> >Vietnam. On the other hand, it is a stretch to say the US lost the war
> >since it won all the military actions, and left several years before
North
> >Vietnam overran the south.
>
> But wasn't the whole point of the US presence to prevent the North
> grabbing the South? They kept fighting until the US withdrew, then moved
> on to achieve their goal. Sounds like a success to me, even if the end
> result wasn't the Socialist Worker's Paradise they'd hoped for.


Well, you could make the arguement that the US objective changed at the end.


>
>
> You're absolutely right on the military success side (though some of the
> victories were expensive: on the other hand, there were lessons learned
> and put to use) but the final objective - an independent non-communist
> South Vietnam - was lost.
>
>
> There's a supposed a quote I'd like to get a proper source for (and to
> know it correctly) that goes along the lines of a senior North
> Vietnamese being told that the US never lost a battle in Vietnam, and
> replying that this is quite true, but also quite irrelevant. (It's got a
> lot of resonance for current "effects-based" doctrine)
>


Yep, I've also seen the quote to which you are referring:

You know you never defeated us on the battlefield,' said the American
colonel.
The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment.
'That may be so,' he replied, 'but it is also irrelevant.'-- (On Strategy,
Harry Summers, p. 21)

And from the point of view of the communist Vietnamese leadership, that view
was correct. They did achieve their political objectives, though
practically destroying themselves and S. Vietnam in the process.


> >Finally, if you have been to Vietnam recently,
> >as I have, you would be hard pressed to say they won, or it was a Pyrrhic
> >victory at best.
>
> Perhaps: but by that argument, wouldn't the US victory be even greater
> if back in the late 1940s it had told the French to get out of their
> ex-colony and offered generous aid and support to Ho Chi Minh? Communist
> or not, I'll bet he'd rather have sold rubber to Firestone and Goodyear
> for hard dollars than to the USSR for roubles. (Fifty years of hindsight
> applies, of course)
>
>


I never said the US won in Vietnam! But if that is victory, I'm not sure it
was worth winning. I'm certain Vietnam would be a far better place had the
North lost.


> Anyone saying there's an easy simple answer to this discussion hasn't
> studied it :)
>


Indeed.

Jarg

> --
> He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
> Julius Caesar I:2
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Georgr:

By refusing to acknowledge that there is such a thing as "objective
truth," you are ceding much of what it means to be a rational human being-
and for that, I pity you. You will never know the joy of rational inquiry.

Much of what separates Man from the Animal Kingdom is the awareness of
Truth- and the joy in its pursuit.

Of course I will let you have the last word- your kind needs it so very
much; you have little else.

And besides, this whole thing is so far off topic I am beginning to
despair of ever getting the newsgroup back.

Steve Swartz



"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Yeff wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:00:09 -0400, George Z. Bush wrote:
> >
> >> Ed, I expected you to argue all of the points I posed as a matter of
> >> self-defense, and you didn't disappoint me. The point that I was
trying to
> >> make, and it does not require a response from you, was that there are
people
> >> who don't see things the way you do, and they're not necessarily wrong
just
> >> because they differ with you.
> >
> > But sometimes they *are* necessarily wrong. People arguing that
something
> > is a war crime when what they're arguing about doesn't meet that
definition
> > means those people are wrong. Period.
>
> You might be right and you might be wrong, and putting "Period" at the end
of
> your comment doesn't mean that the matter's been decided. You might wish
it'd
> be that way, but that's not the way it works.
>
> George Z.
>
>

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote
>
> Perhaps: but by that argument, wouldn't the US victory be even greater
> if back in the late 1940s it had told the French to get out of their
> ex-colony and offered generous aid and support to Ho Chi Minh? Communist
> or not, I'll bet he'd rather have sold rubber to Firestone and Goodyear
> for hard dollars than to the USSR for roubles. (Fifty years of hindsight
> applies, of course)

And 50 yrs later, people would be writing about "Another evil dictator that
the Americans kept in power"

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Pete

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>
> Perhaps: but by that argument, wouldn't the US victory be even greater
> if back in the late 1940s it had told the French to get out of their
> ex-colony
>

Yes.


>
> and offered generous aid and support to Ho Chi Minh?
>

No.

>But wasn't the whole point of the US presence to prevent the North
>grabbing the South? They kept fighting until the US withdrew, then moved
>on to achieve their goal.

Two years passed between those two events. That's a long time: an
entire hitch, for a draftee. There were troops who entered the army
after the last American combat unit left Vietnam in March 1973, who
served out their term, and who were back in civilian life before Hue
fell in March 1975.

It is true, of course, that the U.S. accepted in 1975 what it wouldn't
have accepted in 1965: a North Vietnamese invasion across the DMZ.
There were three U.S. presidents involved in making policy on Vietnam
(four if you include Eisenhower), so there is little wonder that the
policy changed. Why should Nixon have felt obligated to carry out a
policy formulated by the president who preceded the president who
preceded him?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

> If you want to allege influence, it was over the
>length of the drop, not over the fact that he got one.

"The official record of Bush's military service indicates that Bush did not
report in person for the last two years of his service. In addition, superior
officers in both Alabama and Texas say they never saw him during this period.
And George Magazine offers no credible evidence to contradict this...."


"Bush did accumulate the days of service required for an honorable discharge,
but these appear to be no-show days that were credited to him as part of the
extraordinary favoritism that characterized his service from the beginning to
the end of his service."

http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=157

Walt

"WalterM140" > wrote:

> http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=157

Moron why don't you try finding a valid source for the garbage you want to
present - democrats.com might be a valid source for where the next left wing
riot might occur. That is the only news item it would ever have a chance of
getting right.

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:59:56 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
>>>> I committed no atrocities, am guilty of no war crimes, .....
>>
>> If, in your entire career flying bomb-carrying combat aircraft, you ever
>> jettisoned your bomb load for whatever reason on other than your assigned
>> bona-fide target (let's say in a free fire zone), there are some who might
>> make the argument that you most certainly did commit either an atrocity or a
>> war crime if your bombs landed on innocent enemy civilians. I personally
>> don't care to pursue that point, but you ought not be shocked to learn that
>> some people might, and they're not necessarily unpatriotic because they feel
>> that way.
>
> "War crimes" need to be defined as violations of international accords
> regarding the conduct of armed conflict. We can't ascribe the term to
> whatever offends our particular sensibilities or suits our political
> needs of the moment.

Let's take the red herring off the table. Let's just assume that the situation
I described is a violation of the section of the Geneva Accords that prohibits
punishing the civilian populace of the nation with which we are at war, to which
the US is a signatory.
>
> Jettisoning weapons in emergencies, for personal defense, etc, is NOT
> a war crime. There is considerable difference between jettisoning a
> weapons load and targeting innocents. One is acknowledged as an
> unavoidable risk of a combat zone while the other is most assuredly
> proscribed.

I didn't suggest any imminent emergency. I was just suggesting that you had a
piece or ordinance hung up that you couldn't release on target. I also did not
suggest deliberately targeting civilians.
>
> A "free-fire zone" is, in its entirety an area of unrestricted weapons
> employment with only small exceptions, such as hospitals, refugee
> camps, churches (religious buildings), and white flags exempt.
> Delivering in a free-fire zone is not a war crime.

Let's assume that your exceptions to the definition of a "free fire zone" are
accurately stated, as they probably are. The problem becomes one that you may
be somewhat delusion if you think that some people might not take exception to
your conclusion regarding delivering ordinance in a free fire zone when (let's
assume) the entire Gulf of Tonkin was readily and safely available for that
purpose
>
> Certainly there are some who "might make the argument" that I "most
> certainly did commit either an atrocity or a war crime (that's either
> an interesting distinction or a redundancy) IF your bombs landed on
> innocent enemy (oxymoron???) civilians."

Well, we've finally reached an area of agreement in that there might be some
who would consider dropping ordinance on enemy civilians to be an atrocity or a
war crime. I happen to be one of those who think those terms are not
necessarily mutually exclusive in that traumatically amputating the extremities
of an unarmed civilian might well be both an atrocity and a war crime.

I've previously challenged your categorization of innocent enemy civilians since
you apparently suggested that they can't be enemy and innocent at the same time.
Infants and young children are incapable of posing a credible threat to our
armed forces, as are other civilians, including the excessively aged and the
infirm. Pretending that they don't exist in a free fire zone simply because you
can't see them is unacceptable. Only those who take up arms against you are
legitimate targets; those you suspect might do so are not until such time as
they arm themselves. As long as they're unarmed, they're protected by the
provisions of the Geneva Conventions regardless of our suspicions.

> But making the argument isn't
> following the definition of a war crime. Some might even accuse the
> military of genocide or wholesale murder, but they would be employing
> a despicable level of hyperbole.
>
> The purpose of military operations is to "kill people and break
> things". Doing anything less is a sure route to defeat.

In other words, you're saying that anything goes and that you have no
constraints on anything you or the military choose to do. If you claim
something like that, you have to realize that the entire world will snicker and
smirk when our government issues its next annual report of nations who have
egregiously violated the human rights of its own citizens or of others. How can
we expect others to live by our human rights rules when we fail to do so
ourselves? Won't we have lost the moral high ground that our nation has always
enjoyed in the past? Up until WWII and perhaps the Korean War as well, we used
to be the world's good guys. Nowadays, a billion plus Muslims look on us with a
clearly jaundiced or suspicious eye, as well as many others of our former
friends and admirers. What happened to bring that about?

George Z.

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The official record of Bush's military service indicates that Bush did
not
> report in person for the last two years of his service. In addition,
superior
> officers in both Alabama and Texas say they never saw him during this
period.
> And George Magazine offers no credible evidence to contradict this...."
>
>
> "Bush did accumulate the days of service required for an honorable
discharge,
> but these appear to be no-show days that were credited to him as part of
the
> extraordinary favoritism that characterized his service from the beginning
to
> the end of his service."
>
> http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=157
>

The record shows Kerry didn't complete his Vietnam tour.

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moron why don't you try finding a valid source for the garbage you want to
> present - democrats.com might be a valid source for where the next left
wing
> riot might occur. That is the only news item it would ever have a chance
of
> getting right.
>

There is no valid source for his assertions. WalterM140 is not interested
in facts or logic.

In message >, Pete
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote
>> Perhaps: but by that argument, wouldn't the US victory be even greater
>> if back in the late 1940s it had told the French to get out of their
>> ex-colony and offered generous aid and support to Ho Chi Minh? Communist
>> or not, I'll bet he'd rather have sold rubber to Firestone and Goodyear
>> for hard dollars than to the USSR for roubles. (Fifty years of hindsight
>> applies, of course)
>
>And 50 yrs later, people would be writing about "Another evil dictator that
>the Americans kept in power"
>
>Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Sadly, you're right.


Now, for some very my-opinion analysis... (assayed at exactly $0.02)

Maybe Vietnam would go the way of South Korea (prosperous, stable, but
not pleasant to be labelled a 'dissident' in). Or maybe it would be a
new Argentina with its own "dirty war" (where 'dissidents' are subject
to 'a process of elimination').

But given the grief the US got over Vietnam, how much worse could it be?
After all, the US _did_ prop up an assortment of corrupt dictators and
generals in Vietnam before the collapse - if nothing else, better to be
condemned for successfully either walking away or backing the winners,
than for failure.


I'll ask a really cynical question - was the combat experience that the
US gained in Vietnam worth the lives and treasure expended, and the
alleged intangible costs that are so hard to pin down?

(Would the US military have been stronger or weaker without Vietnam? I
have honestly no idea. Would it have been a rejuvenated force as old
equipment was replaced, or would it have placed blind trust in new kit
and - for example - still been using AIM-9Bs into the late 1970s because
tests proved the missiles were marvellous?)


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In message >, Jarg
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>> But wasn't the whole point of the US presence to prevent the North
>> grabbing the South? They kept fighting until the US withdrew, then moved
>> on to achieve their goal. Sounds like a success to me, even if the end
>> result wasn't the Socialist Worker's Paradise they'd hoped for.
>
>Well, you could make the arguement that the US objective changed at the end.

So why change *at the end* if the original goal was so unimportant?

>> Perhaps: but by that argument, wouldn't the US victory be even greater
>> if back in the late 1940s it had told the French to get out of their
>> ex-colony and offered generous aid and support to Ho Chi Minh? Communist
>> or not, I'll bet he'd rather have sold rubber to Firestone and Goodyear
>> for hard dollars than to the USSR for roubles. (Fifty years of hindsight
>> applies, of course)

>I never said the US won in Vietnam!

Sorry, Jarg - my comment was generic rather than particular and
certainly not aimed at you.

>But if that is victory, I'm not sure it
>was worth winning. I'm certain Vietnam would be a far better place had the
>North lost.

The knee-jerk reaction is to insist you're wrong, of course. Which is
why it's rubbish. (Would a South Vietnam dependent on US supply and
still a proxy battlefield for the USSR and to lesser extent China, be
much more stable and prosperous?)



Thinking about it, the problem is getting support and consensus for what
'the national government of Vietnam' is doing. (Can't develop isolated
locations if you can't move supplies without dissident ambushes...) and
a clear win is needed for that - by either side, but one of them has to
show that There Is No Alternative.


It's too late and I'm too tired to put much more on that thought for the
moment. Willing to discuss it, but not right now. (Seriously, Jarg - if
it offends you, I'm sorry and let's leave it be. If you're interested in
it, very willing to debate)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

>Up until WWII and perhaps the Korean War as well, we used
>to be the world's good guys. Nowadays, a billion plus Muslims look on us
>with a
>clearly jaundiced or suspicious eye, as well as many others of our former
>friends and admirers. What happened to bring that about?
>

The Bush 43 administration.

Walt

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> Up until WWII and perhaps the Korean War as well, we used
> to be the world's good guys. Nowadays, a billion plus Muslims
> look on us with a clearly jaundiced or suspicious eye, as well as
> many others of our former friends and admirers. What happened
> to bring that about?
>

The teaching of radical Islam.

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:

....
> What did we get out of it? We changed the way we organize, train and
> fight our wars. We lost one F-105 for every 65 sorties over N. Vietnam
> in '66 and '67. We lost one fixed wing aircraft for every 3500 sorties
> during Desert Storm. We lost one fixed wing aircraft...period, in
> Iraqi Freedom for 16,500 sorties. We learned some lessons.

Do you suppose the fact that Iraq didn't have the advantage of real-time
super-power support (from the Soviets) in the form of arms, training,
and "advisors" has anything to do with it?




--Mike

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> >" I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into
> >the
> >campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst
> >possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential
> >campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and
> >written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning."
>
> Ahh, yes. That from he who repeatedly inserts Vietnam into the
> campaign. How duplicitous.
> >
> >"We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have
> >personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone
> >who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their
> >country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting
> >in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of
> >that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who
> >ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people
> >who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn
> >against the will of their own aspirations?"
> >
> >Senator John Kerry, Jan 30, 1992
>
> Why do I feel this strong urge to regurgitate?
>
> From one of Kerry's accused war criminals...


Ed, can I ask when John Kerry ever said that _everybody_ serving in
Vietnam has committed atrocities and were war criminals (verifiable cite
please)?

I don't see him how saying that atrocities were going on translates to
everybody was doing them.

Or is it that partisanship compels you to play the victim when you're
not one?


--Mike

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> >> From one of Kerry's accused war criminals...
> >>
> >
> >"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others
> >in that I shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire,
> >joined in search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these
> >acts were established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered
> >this are war criminals."
> >
> >"I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and
> >say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over
> >150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified
> >to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents
> >but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of
> >officers at all levels of command."
> >
> >John Kerry, April 1971
> >
>
> Yeah, ain't war a bitch.
>
> And, wasn't it amazing how many of those "honorably discharged and
> ...highly decorated..." assholes turned out to be wannabes and
> neverweres.
>
> Just last month in Nashville, I met with seven hundred combat aviators
> from that conflict who wouldn't urinate on Kerry if he were aflame.


One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you
suppose that is?


--Mike

Michael Wise wrote:

> In article >,
> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> ...
> > What did we get out of it? We changed the way we organize, train and
> > fight our wars. We lost one F-105 for every 65 sorties over N. Vietnam
> > in '66 and '67. We lost one fixed wing aircraft for every 3500 sorties
> > during Desert Storm. We lost one fixed wing aircraft...period, in
> > Iraqi Freedom for 16,500 sorties. We learned some lessons.
>
> Do you suppose the fact that Iraq didn't have the advantage of real-time
> super-power support (from the Soviets) in the form of arms, training,
> and "advisors" has anything to do with it?

nevermind the fact that the US didn't really have air superiority over
vietnam, nor
did they have the benefit of having waxed almost all the SAM batteries
already, nor
did they have AWACS aircraft to tell their fighters where the Migs were 200
or 300 miles
out. Yeah...learned some lessons... learned how not to do it next time. And
how not to do it
is against someone as capable as themselves again. Go after the small
enemies, then your president
can look good on tv. ignore the big fish that'd kick yer arse again.

(WalterM140) wrote:


>>Up until WWII and perhaps the Korean War as well, we used
>>to be the world's good guys. Nowadays, a billion plus Muslims look on us
>>with a
>>clearly jaundiced or suspicious eye, as well as many others of our former
>>friends and admirers. What happened to bring that about?

>The Bush 43 administration.

If you are old enough to think back, you will recall that the US was declared a
Great Satan under the Carter Administration, and ever since.

>Walt
(Apparently born yesterday

-- Charlie Springer

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:


> > He only gave it to the USO after unsuccessfully waiting for months for
> > somebody to come forward with some credible evidence. When
> > nobody did, he turned the money over to the USO even though there
> > was no winner.
> >
>
> But someone did come forward with some credible evidence. Did Trudeau make
> the donation in the name of John Calhoun or did he renege on his promise?
>
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?F22924488
>
>
> Former Guardsman: Bush served with me in Alabama


So a single person who boasts of being a "staunch Republican" and whose
name was given to the press by "a Republican close to Bush" and who
claims to have witnessed all these appearances which nobody else can
recall constitutes credible evidence on your planet?


--Mike

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:08:22 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik >
> wrote:
> >
> >I got a 6 month "early out" in 1974 from the USAF.I jumped at the chance to
> >get it,was the first one to apply on my base.(LG Hanscom Fld,Ma.)
>
> My advice is don't run for political office.


Not unless its on the Republican ticket. ; )


--Mike

"Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Michael Wise wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > > What did we get out of it? We changed the way we organize, train and
> > > fight our wars. We lost one F-105 for every 65 sorties over N. Vietnam
> > > in '66 and '67. We lost one fixed wing aircraft for every 3500 sorties
> > > during Desert Storm. We lost one fixed wing aircraft...period, in
> > > Iraqi Freedom for 16,500 sorties. We learned some lessons.
> >
> > Do you suppose the fact that Iraq didn't have the advantage of real-time
> > super-power support (from the Soviets) in the form of arms, training,
> > and "advisors" has anything to do with it?
>
> nevermind the fact that the US didn't really have air superiority over
> vietnam,

air superiority: That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force
over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its
related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without
prohibitive interference by the opposing force.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/a/00291.html
It appears that by that definition (though maybe you are not using the
definition agreed to by the US military branches) we did indeed have air
superiority--can you identify any targets we wanted to strike that we were
prevented from striking, whenever we so chose?

nor
> did they have the benefit of having waxed almost all the SAM batteries
> already,

An unfortunate political decision, but regardless, having ADA and SAM's does
not by definition deny us 'air superiority". Though you are getting a bit
warmer here--the US did learn a lesson in regards to taking down the IADS,
instead of letting some politico back DC decide it was not a worthwhile
target...

nor
> did they have AWACS aircraft to tell their fighters where the Migs were
200
> or 300 miles
> out.

Maybe not to the degree that we have now, but we did have these nifty things
called EC-121's...

>Yeah...learned some lessons... learned how not to do it next time.

I don't know about that; yes, we did learn from the mistakes we made (which
is why we are the best, right?), but everything we did was not a mistake.
LBII seemed to be on the right track, and accomplished its goals. The first
truly effective use of heavy bombers in support of tactical ground units on
a widespread basis, the use of modern PGM's, effective use of helicopter
gunships (to include use of reliable ATGM's from helos, during the 72 Easter
Offensive IIRC), and the most effective use of heliborne airmobile assets up
to that time, etc.

And
> how not to do it
> is against someone as capable as themselves again.

Well, after we get finished with round one, the opposition tends to not be
very effective at all; witness ODS.

Go after the small
> enemies, then your president
> can look good on tv. ignore the big fish that'd kick yer arse again.

And which fish would that be?

Brooks

>
>
>

Michael Wise wrote:
> In article >,
> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>>>> From one of Kerry's accused war criminals...
>>>>
>>>
>>> "I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others
>>> in that I shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire,
>>> joined in search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these
>>> acts were established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered
>>> this are war criminals."
>>>
>>> "I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and
>>> say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over
>>> 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified
>>> to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents
>>> but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of
>>> officers at all levels of command."
>>>
>>> John Kerry, April 1971
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, ain't war a bitch.
>>
>> And, wasn't it amazing how many of those "honorably discharged and
>> ...highly decorated..." assholes turned out to be wannabes and
>> neverweres.
>>
>> Just last month in Nashville, I met with seven hundred combat aviators
>> from that conflict who wouldn't urinate on Kerry if he were aflame.
>
>
> One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
> hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
> gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you
> suppose that is?

Maybe because they were fighting different kinds of wars. They each had their
own peculiar and different kinds of hell, but generally speaking, the one aloft
was a whole lot cleaner and smelled a whole lot better than the one on the
ground.

George Z.
>
>
> --Mike

Regnirps wrote:
> (WalterM140) wrote:
>
>
>>> Up until WWII and perhaps the Korean War as well, we used
>>> to be the world's good guys. Nowadays, a billion plus Muslims look on us
>>> with a
>>> clearly jaundiced or suspicious eye, as well as many others of our former
>>> friends and admirers. What happened to bring that about?
>
>> The Bush 43 administration.
>
> If you are old enough to think back, you will recall that the US was declared
> a Great Satan under the Carter Administration, and ever since.
>
> (Apparently born yesterday
>
> -- Charlie Springer

That was true, but in those days, it was mostly by Iran acting alone because of
our involvement with the late Shah. Nowadays, just about the entire Muslim
world has joined in, minus a handful of Islamic governments whose viability is
tied to their relationships with our government.

George Z.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 05:27:27 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:

>One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
>hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
>gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you
>suppose that is?
>

There could be a number of reasons. First, the number who today claim
"hand-to-hand combat" seems unfortunately to be drastically inflated
by thousands of poseurs claiming to be something they were not. See
Burkitt's "Stolen Valor" for some astonishing tales.

Of those who served on the ground, the proportion of career to draftee
and officer to lower-rank enlisted could change the perception of
events. Of ground vets from Vietnam, I have seldom encountered any
that went so far as John Kerry in their condemnation of their fellow
warriors. I know of none that have called their service traitorous,
their actions and those of their comrades criminal, or their service
dishonorable. Maybe I don't travel in the right circles.

As for those who flew "far above", you might want to consider the
sustained loss rates of the Rolling Thunder participants in comparison
to those "hand-to-hand" combats. Or, maybe check the proportion of
POWs between the ground and air combatants.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 05:11:46 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:

>In article >,
> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>...
>> What did we get out of it? We changed the way we organize, train and
>> fight our wars. We lost one F-105 for every 65 sorties over N. Vietnam
>> in '66 and '67. We lost one fixed wing aircraft for every 3500 sorties
>> during Desert Storm. We lost one fixed wing aircraft...period, in
>> Iraqi Freedom for 16,500 sorties. We learned some lessons.
>
>Do you suppose the fact that Iraq didn't have the advantage of real-time
>super-power support (from the Soviets) in the form of arms, training,
>and "advisors" has anything to do with it?

You might want to check out the equippage, advising, training and
doctrine in place at the start of Desert Storm before repeating that
bit of revisionism. Some analysts even contend that the failure of
Soviet militarysupport so clearly displayed contributed to the
collapse of the SU.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> >> What did we get out of it? We changed the way we organize, train and
> >> fight our wars. We lost one F-105 for every 65 sorties over N. Vietnam
> >> in '66 and '67. We lost one fixed wing aircraft for every 3500 sorties
> >> during Desert Storm. We lost one fixed wing aircraft...period, in
> >> Iraqi Freedom for 16,500 sorties. We learned some lessons.
> >
> >Do you suppose the fact that Iraq didn't have the advantage of real-time
> >super-power support (from the Soviets) in the form of arms, training,
> >and "advisors" has anything to do with it?
>
> You might want to check out the equippage, advising, training and
> doctrine in place at the start of Desert Storm

What part of "real-time" support, arming, training, and advisors do you
not understand?

>... before repeating that bit of revisionism.


The only revisionism here are people trying to imply that battlefield
opposition in Iraq was even a fraction of what existed in Vietnam (or
Korea, for that matter)


> Some analysts even contend that the failure of
> Soviet militarysupport so clearly displayed contributed to the
> collapse of the SU.


Some analysts also claim Elvis was hiding in the same rat hole with
Saddam...but escaped. Gorbachev's glasnost/perestroika policies are the
main reason the East Bloc collapsed.


--Mike

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 17:37:13 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:

>In article >,
> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>> >
>> >Do you suppose the fact that Iraq didn't have the advantage of real-time
>> >super-power support (from the Soviets) in the form of arms, training,
>> >and "advisors" has anything to do with it?
>>
>> You might want to check out the equippage, advising, training and
>> doctrine in place at the start of Desert Storm
>
>What part of "real-time" support, arming, training, and advisors do you
>not understand?

What part of "in place" doesn't equate with "real-time"?
>
>>... before repeating that bit of revisionism.
>
>
>The only revisionism here are people trying to imply that battlefield
>opposition in Iraq was even a fraction of what existed in Vietnam (or
>Korea, for that matter)

At the start of Desert Storm, the military of Iraq was ranked as fifth
largest in the world. Battlefield opposition at the start of Vietnam
was strictly small-arms, guerilla forces. Ia Drang was an
enlightenment. But, there was no armor, little artillery, zero modern
logistics possessed by the VC at the start in '64-'65. The Air Order
of Battle possessed by NVN was never more than 120 aircraft and
usually closer to 75 throughout the war.
>
>
>> Some analysts even contend that the failure of
>> Soviet militarysupport so clearly displayed contributed to the
>> collapse of the SU.
>
>
>Some analysts also claim Elvis was hiding in the same rat hole with
>Saddam...but escaped. Gorbachev's glasnost/perestroika policies are the
>main reason the East Bloc collapsed.

Gorbachev's policies can also be attributed to the generational shift
from the leadership of the Stalinist cronies to the thirty year
younger generation that he represented. His glasnost (what a
concept--free exchange of information with the non-communist world)
and perestroika (participating in a free-trade global economy rather
than continuing the failures of central planning) were little more
than acknowledgement of the shortcomings recognized by George F.
Kennan in 1947.

>
>
>--Mike

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> >One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
> >hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
> >gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you
> >suppose that is?
> >
>
> There could be a number of reasons. First, the number who today claim
> "hand-to-hand combat" seems unfortunately to be drastically inflated
> by thousands of poseurs claiming to be something they were not. See
> Burkitt's "Stolen Valor" for some astonishing tales.

I doubt any of us who are or have been on active duty have much trouble
spotting a poseur. I'm speaking based on conversations I had with people
who most definitely fought hand-to-hand, like the people I served with
who flew CSAR, some of the people I worked with at the VA, and more than
a handful of disabled vets who I assisted in getting their benefits.

Why is it that most of those people are far less gung-ho about that
conflict than people such as yourself who flew high above the ground?
I'm not trying to denigrate any type of combat experience, but 24/7
dangers faced on the ground apparently fostered different impressions.


> Of those who served on the ground, the proportion of career to draftee
> and officer to lower-rank enlisted could change the perception of
> events. Of ground vets from Vietnam, I have seldom encountered any
> that went so far as John Kerry in their condemnation of their fellow
> warriors.

Are you speak of encounters with them while the war was still going...or
years later?


> As for those who flew "far above", you might want to consider the
> sustained loss rates of the Rolling Thunder participants in comparison
> to those "hand-to-hand" combats. Or, maybe check the proportion of
> POWs between the ground and air combatants.


Nobody questions the dangers faced by aircrews who flew missions in
Vietnam. However, in a fast-mover your odds of getting back to base
outside the country for a cold beer and a hot meal are much better than
the grunt in the jungles with an M-16 even surviving. I don't see how
that can be denied. It's one of the reasons I wasn't a grunt...even
though I knew the chances of surviving any more than a handful of
potential CSAR missions was not good.



--Mike

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> >> >Do you suppose the fact that Iraq didn't have the advantage of real-time
> >> >super-power support (from the Soviets) in the form of arms, training,
> >> >and "advisors" has anything to do with it?
> >>
> >> You might want to check out the equippage, advising, training and
> >> doctrine in place at the start of Desert Storm
> >
> >What part of "real-time" support, arming, training, and advisors do you
> >not understand?
>
> What part of "in place" doesn't equate with "real-time"?

"In place at the start" is static. It means at point A, this, this, and
that were there. Real-time means that not only were this, this, and that
there at point A, but they were sustained and augmented throughout the
conflict.

So to answer your question of "What part of "in place" doesn't equate
with 'real-time'"?: none of it equates to real-time.


> >>... before repeating that bit of revisionism.
> >
> >
> >The only revisionism here are people trying to imply that battlefield
> >opposition in Iraq was even a fraction of what existed in Vietnam (or
> >Korea, for that matter)
>
> At the start of Desert Storm, the military of Iraq was ranked as fifth
> largest in the world.

Great, and I hear Spiderbreath, Kansas has the 3rd largest ball of yarn
in the world.

A gazillion trained bodies with a dirty AK's in one hand and white
flags in the other does not constitute a major force.




> Battlefield opposition at the start of Vietnam
> was strictly small-arms, guerilla forces. Ia Drang was an
> enlightenment. But, there was no armor, little artillery, zero modern
> logistics possessed by the VC at the start in '64-'65. The Air Order
> of Battle possessed by NVN was never more than 120 aircraft and
> usually closer to 75 throughout the war.


So we have established that Iraq was better prepared at the onset of
battle than was Vietnam. I imagine a decade of high-intensity fighting
with Iran probably had something to do with that. In any case, I didn't
refer to what may or may not have existed at a single static moment; I'm
referring to outside help from a major super-power throughout the entire
conflict. Did Iraq have that for even a day of Operation Re-elect Bush
or the latest war?


> >> Some analysts even contend that the failure of
> >> Soviet militarysupport so clearly displayed contributed to the
> >> collapse of the SU.
> >
> >
> >Some analysts also claim Elvis was hiding in the same rat hole with
> >Saddam...but escaped. Gorbachev's glasnost/perestroika policies are the
> >main reason the East Bloc collapsed.
>
> Gorbachev's policies can also be attributed to the generational shift
> from the leadership of the Stalinist cronies to the thirty year
> younger generation that he represented. His glasnost (what a
> concept--free exchange of information with the non-communist world)
> and perestroika (participating in a free-trade global economy rather
> than continuing the failures of central planning) were little more
> than acknowledgement of the shortcomings recognized by George F.
> Kennan in 1947.

They were also 99% of the reason why the East Bloc fell.


--Mike

>Subject: Re: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 6/13/2004 9:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 05:27:27 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:
>
>>One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
>>hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
>>gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you
>>suppose that is?
>>
>
>There could be a number of reasons. First, the number who today claim
>"hand-to-hand combat" seems unfortunately to be drastically inflated
>by thousands of poseurs claiming to be something they were not. See
>Burkitt's "Stolen Valor" for some astonishing tales.
>
>Of those who served on the ground, the proportion of career to draftee
>and officer to lower-rank enlisted could change the perception of
>events. Of ground vets from Vietnam, I have seldom encountered any
>that went so far as John Kerry in their condemnation of their fellow
>warriors. I know of none that have called their service traitorous,
>their actions and those of their comrades criminal, or their service
>dishonorable. Maybe I don't travel in the right circles.
>
>As for those who flew "far above", you might want to consider the
>sustained loss rates of the Rolling Thunder participants in comparison
>to those "hand-to-hand" combats. Or, maybe check the proportion of
>POWs between the ground and air combatants.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>
Only the infantry stole stole valor, never the airmen?

On 13 Jun 2004 18:30:24 GMT, (Lisakbernacchia)
wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>
>>There could be a number of reasons. First, the number who today claim
>>"hand-to-hand combat" seems unfortunately to be drastically inflated
>>by thousands of poseurs claiming to be something they were not. See
>>Burkitt's "Stolen Valor" for some astonishing tales.
>>
>Only the infantry stole stole valor, never the airmen?

You seem intent on becoming a regular contributor here. If that is so,
then might I suggest that you read just a bit more slowly and try to
detach a bit from your agenda.

I did not say that only "the infantry stole valor..." Nor does
Burkitt. There have been a rash of poseurs claiming to be SEALs,
Special Ops, CIA operatives, POWs, MOH recipients, and pilots.

Recently at a ceremony in Colorado a man in the uniform of an AF
colonel, wearing wings and the AF Cross, told stories of having been a
POW, escaping captivity, evading capture, heroic flights, etc. His
problem was that he never rose above the rank of A/1C, that he was
never a pilot, never a POW and never left the US when he was on active
duty. His biggest problem was that also on the podium was the National
Commander of the Nam-POWs who proceeded to blow the whistle on him.

The reality is that while there were hundreds of thousands who saw
ground combat in SEA, there were millions who served in support
functions both in country and elsewhere. Many have made claims of
combat experience that are untrue. Many, of course are very true.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:09:46 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:

>In article >,
> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>> >One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
>> >hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
>> >gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you
>> >suppose that is?
>> >
>>
>> There could be a number of reasons. First, the number who today claim
>> "hand-to-hand combat" seems unfortunately to be drastically inflated
>> by thousands of poseurs claiming to be something they were not. See
>> Burkitt's "Stolen Valor" for some astonishing tales.
>
>I doubt any of us who are or have been on active duty have much trouble
>spotting a poseur. I'm speaking based on conversations I had with people
>who most definitely fought hand-to-hand, like the people I served with
>who flew CSAR, some of the people I worked with at the VA, and more than
>a handful of disabled vets who I assisted in getting their benefits.

Burkitt reserves a lot of space in his book to discuss the VA.
>
>Why is it that most of those people are far less gung-ho about that
>conflict than people such as yourself who flew high above the ground?
>I'm not trying to denigrate any type of combat experience, but 24/7
>dangers faced on the ground apparently fostered different impressions.

Indeed they do. The sustained combat experience on the ground is
decidedly different than an hour or two "across the fence." But there
is also the difference between several days of intense ground combat
(and let's acknowledge that SEA was considerably less intense than the
incredible duration of battle in WW II), and months of daily rising to
face the mission of the day. Consider the Luftwaffe who had no end of
tour, but simply flew until the war would be over or they would be
dead.

During Rolling Thunder, I got up each day and went to a briefing with
25 other guys. On average, each and every day for six months, one of
those 25 would be lost. Some days, none. Some days three or four.
Average, one a day. Keep going to the briefing and one day you will be
the one.
>
>
>> Of those who served on the ground, the proportion of career to draftee
>> and officer to lower-rank enlisted could change the perception of
>> events. Of ground vets from Vietnam, I have seldom encountered any
>> that went so far as John Kerry in their condemnation of their fellow
>> warriors.
>
>Are you speak of encounters with them while the war was still going...or
>years later?

I continue to encounter veterans from all services.

>> As for those who flew "far above", you might want to consider the
>> sustained loss rates of the Rolling Thunder participants in comparison
>> to those "hand-to-hand" combats. Or, maybe check the proportion of
>> POWs between the ground and air combatants.
>
>
>Nobody questions the dangers faced by aircrews who flew missions in
>Vietnam. However, in a fast-mover your odds of getting back to base
>outside the country for a cold beer and a hot meal are much better than
>the grunt in the jungles with an M-16 even surviving. I don't see how
>that can be denied. It's one of the reasons I wasn't a grunt...even
>though I knew the chances of surviving any more than a handful of
>potential CSAR missions was not good.

The odds of completing a 100 mission NVN tour were poor. In '66 an
F-105 was lost every 65 missions over NVN. For every five that started
a tour, three of the five would be lost. 40% survival rate.

There are definitely ground units from the war that suffered similar
rates, but that is the exception.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

>Subject: Re: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 6/13/2004 12:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>You seem intent on becoming a regular contributor here. If that is so,
>then might I suggest that you read just a bit more slowly and try to
>detach a bit from your agenda.
>

Only I have an agenda and you have none?. 'Id say that your claim that we won
in VN is clearly an agenda..And one lacking in merit on any basis.

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>
> Recently at a ceremony in Colorado a man in the uniform of an AF
> colonel, wearing wings and the AF Cross, told stories of having been a
> POW, escaping captivity, evading capture, heroic flights, etc. His
> problem was that he never rose above the rank of A/1C, that he was
> never a pilot, never a POW and never left the US when he was on active
> duty. His biggest problem was that also on the podium was the National
> Commander of the Nam-POWs who proceeded to blow the whistle on him.
>
> The reality is that while there were hundreds of thousands who saw
> ground combat in SEA, there were millions who served in support
> functions both in country and elsewhere. Many have made claims of
> combat experience that are untrue. Many, of course are very true.

During Desert Storm, there was a USAF guy from Lakenheath, I believe. Went
home on leave just after (or during) operations, and was interviewed, on TV,
as to his experiences in Iraq.

"Pilot, almost got shot down, blowing stuff up, me and my wingman, blah blah
blah"

Turns out he was also an A1C.

Pete

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> >> >One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
> >> >hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
> >> >gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you
> >> >suppose that is?
> >> >
> >>
> >> There could be a number of reasons. First, the number who today claim
> >> "hand-to-hand combat" seems unfortunately to be drastically inflated
> >> by thousands of poseurs claiming to be something they were not. See
> >> Burkitt's "Stolen Valor" for some astonishing tales.
> >
> >I doubt any of us who are or have been on active duty have much trouble
> >spotting a poseur. I'm speaking based on conversations I had with people
> >who most definitely fought hand-to-hand, like the people I served with
> >who flew CSAR, some of the people I worked with at the VA, and more than
> >a handful of disabled vets who I assisted in getting their benefits.
>
> Burkitt reserves a lot of space in his book to discuss the VA.


Meaning what? Does he claim combat vets and/or disabled vets working for
the VA are less than honest?


> During Rolling Thunder, I got up each day and went to a briefing with
> 25 other guys. On average, each and every day for six months, one of
> those 25 would be lost. Some days, none. Some days three or four.
> Average, one a day. Keep going to the briefing and one day you will be
> the one.

Well my hat goes off to you and to all those who paid in blood or risked
that blood doing what their country told them to do. I find it next to
impossible to understand how any vet (especially a combat vet) would
make statements about not "****ing on somebody if they were one fire"
when that somebody also risked their all and shed blood for their
country.

Partisanship should never trump honor and respect. It's sad that
uber-partisans of both major political parties in the U.S. have lost
sight of that (if they ever had it in the first place).



> >> As for those who flew "far above", you might want to consider the
> >> sustained loss rates of the Rolling Thunder participants in comparison
> >> to those "hand-to-hand" combats. Or, maybe check the proportion of
> >> POWs between the ground and air combatants.
> >
> >
> >Nobody questions the dangers faced by aircrews who flew missions in
> >Vietnam. However, in a fast-mover your odds of getting back to base
> >outside the country for a cold beer and a hot meal are much better than
> >the grunt in the jungles with an M-16 even surviving. I don't see how
> >that can be denied. It's one of the reasons I wasn't a grunt...even
> >though I knew the chances of surviving any more than a handful of
> >potential CSAR missions was not good.
>
> The odds of completing a 100 mission NVN tour were poor. In '66 an
> F-105 was lost every 65 missions over NVN. For every five that started
> a tour, three of the five would be lost. 40% survival rate.
>
> There are definitely ground units from the war that suffered similar
> rates, but that is the exception.


I don't doubt what you're saying for a minute. Never having been in
combat, I can't speak from experience, but numbers on paper be
damned...I'll take fighting from above over eyeball to eyeball at close
quarters any day.


--Mike

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:07:21 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:

>In article >,
> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>
>> Burkitt reserves a lot of space in his book to discuss the VA.
>
>
>Meaning what? Does he claim combat vets and/or disabled vets working for
>the VA are less than honest?

"Stolen Valor" is a very worthwhile read. It covers a lot of urban
myths about the war--things like the average age of the combatants
being only nineteen or predominantly minorities. It covers the poseurs
and wannabes--folks claiming distinctive service, high level awards,
and special status. It also talks extensively about the VA's interest
in perpetuating PTSD to the point of falsifying diagnoses for the
purpose of maintaining high funding levels.

(Please do not jump ahead and suggest that I'm all wet if I deny PTSD.
I certainly do not. Read the book and see what Burkitt documents.)
>
>
>> During Rolling Thunder, I got up each day and went to a briefing with
>> 25 other guys. On average, each and every day for six months, one of
>> those 25 would be lost. Some days, none. Some days three or four.
>> Average, one a day. Keep going to the briefing and one day you will be
>> the one.
>
>Well my hat goes off to you and to all those who paid in blood or risked
>that blood doing what their country told them to do. I find it next to
>impossible to understand how any vet (especially a combat vet) would
>make statements about not "****ing on somebody if they were one fire"
>when that somebody also risked their all and shed blood for their
>country.

It isn't Kerry's combat experience that can speak for itself whether
you respect it or find it self-serving. It is his conduct during the
Winter Soldier testimony, his categorization of the military still in
harm's way as criminals and guilty of atrocities, his throwing of
someone else's medals over the White House fence, his alignment with
VVAW and offering of aid/comfort to the enemy.

He now seeks to turn the clock back and trade on his combat experience
as that seems to offer more traction in a nation at war.
>
>> The odds of completing a 100 mission NVN tour were poor. In '66 an
>> F-105 was lost every 65 missions over NVN. For every five that started
>> a tour, three of the five would be lost. 40% survival rate.
>>
>> There are definitely ground units from the war that suffered similar
>> rates, but that is the exception.
>
>
>I don't doubt what you're saying for a minute. Never having been in
>combat, I can't speak from experience, but numbers on paper be
>damned...I'll take fighting from above over eyeball to eyeball at close
>quarters any day.

So will I.

Didn't you say a while back that you were in the CSAR business? Never
got to employ your skills?



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>...It also talks extensively about the VA's interest
> in perpetuating PTSD to the point of falsifying diagnoses for the
> purpose of maintaining high funding levels.


Fair enough. I guess I'll have to read the book to find out the details.
However, if the VA has falsified diagnoses for financial gain as the
author apparently claims, it hasn't been very successful. Both Bush Sr.
and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously. It seems like the
leaders who beat the war drums the loudest and lavish money on the
military the most...also have no qualms about screwing over the people
who answered the call and paid for it in blood.

The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
government didn't want to pay for it).


> (Please do not jump ahead and suggest that I'm all wet if I deny PTSD.
> I certainly do not. Read the book and see what Burkitt documents.)


Sounds like a worthwhile read. The only book I've ever read concerning
Vietnam was Chickenhawk....which being a helo type, I enjoyed immensely.


> ...
> It isn't Kerry's combat experience that can speak for itself whether
> you respect it or find it self-serving.

I don't find ANYBODY's combat experience to be self-serving. If you put
your ass on the line and/or shed blood, honor is merited.

> It is his conduct during the
> Winter Soldier testimony, his categorization of the military still in
> harm's way as criminals and guilty of atrocities,

Did he say that all military personnel in Vietnam were criminals and
guilty of atrocities?


> his throwing of
> someone else's medals over the White House fence

What of it?

> his alignment with
> VVAW and offering of aid/comfort to the enemy.


How did he offer either aid or comfort to the enemy?


> He now seeks to turn the clock back and trade on his combat experience
> as that seems to offer more traction in a nation at war.


He was silent on it for a long time, but the media kept bringing it
up...over and over again. Is he supposed to remain quiet about his
honorable service to country?

The Republicans made such a big deal about Clinton not having served and
avoiding serving. Now that their opposition served in combat and served
with honor while their candidate and many of the people in his admin
(the people who really run this country) did everything in their power
to avoid putting their asses on the line is on the table...they do
everything to discredit honor where honor is due and inflate the service
to country of a chickenhawk administration.

It's bad enough when chickenhawk politicians use such tactics, but its
shameful when real vets do. You don't have to like John Kerry (I
personally don't although the alternative is unthinkable) and you don't
have to vote for him. But to **** on his service because he came home
against the war (like many vets) and was outspoken about it is shameful.


> ...
> Didn't you say a while back that you were in the CSAR business? Never
> got to employ your skills?


Nope. About 10 years too young to have served in Vietnam and got out
well before Iraq. I was in the active reserves (HS-246) during the first
Iraq affair, but never got called...and quit the reserved after
hostilities ended (out of disgust over US troops being sent there in the
first place).

My CSAR experience is limited to the Nevada desert around NAS Fallon and
a few close calls with some Iranian gunboats off of Bandar Abbas.


--Mike

>From: Michael Wise
>Date: 6/13/2004 1:09 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>> >One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
>> >hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
>> >gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you
>> >suppose that is?
>> >
>>
>> There could be a number of reasons. First, the number who today claim
>> "hand-to-hand combat" seems unfortunately to be drastically inflated
>> by thousands of poseurs claiming to be something they were not. See
>> Burkitt's "Stolen Valor" for some astonishing tales.
>
>I doubt any of us who are or have been on active duty have much trouble
>spotting a poseur. I'm speaking based on conversations I had with people
>who most definitely fought hand-to-hand, like the people I served with
>who flew CSAR, some of the people I worked with at the VA, and more than
>a handful of disabled vets who I assisted in getting their benefits.
>
>Why is it that most of those people are far less gung-ho about that
>conflict than people such as yourself who flew high above the ground?
>I'm not trying to denigrate any type of combat experience, but 24/7
>dangers faced on the ground apparently fostered different impressions.

The primary differences between those of us on the ground and those in the air
was we had a shorter distance to fall and they had better quarters. We spent
98% of the time bored out of our minds, they had a lot less boredome time. Are
you under the impression all Ed had to do was hop into his 105 fly for 2 hours
then hop out and go to the club? I assure you between mission planning,
briefing, preflight, ops, debrief etc he had a longer period of activity in his
day than those on the ground. We could relax and watch the grass grow at least.


>
>
>> Of those who served on the ground, the proportion of career to draftee
>> and officer to lower-rank enlisted could change the perception of
>> events. Of ground vets from Vietnam, I have seldom encountered any
>> that went so far as John Kerry in their condemnation of their fellow
>> warriors.
>
>Are you speak of encounters with them while the war was still going...or
>years later?
>
>
>> As for those who flew "far above", you might want to consider the
>> sustained loss rates of the Rolling Thunder participants in comparison
>> to those "hand-to-hand" combats. Or, maybe check the proportion of
>> POWs between the ground and air combatants.
>
>
>Nobody questions the dangers faced by aircrews who flew missions in
>Vietnam. However, in a fast-mover your odds of getting back to base
>outside the country for a cold beer and a hot meal are much better than
>the grunt in the jungles with an M-16 even surviving.

That's funny. Did you happen to notice the vast majority of the grunts in the
field actually survived?

I don't see how
>that can be denied. It's one of the reasons I wasn't a grunt...even
>though I knew the chances of surviving any more than a handful of
>potential CSAR missions was not good.

And you got this data where?

>
>--Mike
>

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>
>
>

>From: Michael Wise
>Date: 6/13/2004 1:24 PM Central
>

<snip>

>A gazillion trained bodies with a dirty AK's in one hand and white
>flags in the other does not constitute a major force.
>

Mike, trained forces don't have dirty weapons. If you had ever been in the
military and had weapons training you'd know that. The only time I came across
dirty weapons they were either abandoned or USAF aircrew weapons in my last
unit since they tended to not clean their weapons even after firing them,

Now how is a "gazillion trained bodies" with weapons NOT a major force? Would
you go up against them? The VC did pretty good work for a bunch of people with
low tech weapons as did the Soviet infantry in WW2.

>--Mike

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >A gazillion trained bodies with a dirty AK's in one hand and white
> >flags in the other does not constitute a major force.
> >
>
> Mike, trained forces don't have dirty weapons.

Actually, I meant to say "untrained" as should be apparent within the
context of the sentence.


> If you had ever been in the
> military and had weapons training you'd know that.

Growing up in a house with several hundred pistols and rifles (my father
is collector); qualifying with .45, 9mm, and M-60 in the military
frequently flying with an firing the (M-60 in the door of my helo); and
visiting the range at least once a month now, I'm quite well aware of
that.

As I said, it was a typo: I meant to say "untrained."


> The only time I came across
> dirty weapons they were either abandoned or USAF aircrew weapons in my last
> unit since they tended to not clean their weapons even after firing them,


Not surprising...given it's the USAF we're talking about. ; )


> Now how is a "gazillion trained bodies" with weapons NOT a major force?


Because they were "untrained."



--Mike

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:


> >Why is it that most of those people are far less gung-ho about that
> >conflict than people such as yourself who flew high above the ground?
> >I'm not trying to denigrate any type of combat experience, but 24/7
> >dangers faced on the ground apparently fostered different impressions.
>
> The primary differences between those of us on the ground and those in the
> air
> was we had a shorter distance to fall and they had better quarters.

And also faced with the day to day real possibilities of close quarter
brutal combat.

> We spent
> 98% of the time bored out of our minds, they had a lot less boredome time.
> Are
> you under the impression all Ed had to do was hop into his 105 fly for 2
> hours
> then hop out and go to the club?


Nope. That's not what I said or meant to say.

> I assure you between mission planning,
> briefing, preflight, ops, debrief etc he had a longer period of activity in
> his
> day than those on the ground. We could relax and watch the grass grow at
> least.


Having flown some 6-7 hundred missions (peacetime) myself, I'm quite
well aware of what is involved outside the actual flight itself. Still,
I would much rather take my chances in the air than on the ground.




> >Nobody questions the dangers faced by aircrews who flew missions in
> >Vietnam. However, in a fast-mover your odds of getting back to base
> >outside the country for a cold beer and a hot meal are much better than
> >the grunt in the jungles with an M-16 even surviving.
>
> That's funny. Did you happen to notice the vast majority of the grunts in the
> field actually survived?

As did the vast majority of aviators.

>
> I don't see how
> >that can be denied. It's one of the reasons I wasn't a grunt...even
> >though I knew the chances of surviving any more than a handful of
> >potential CSAR missions was not good.
>
> And you got this data where?


From the 1/3 of the pilots in my helicopter squadron who flew CSAR in
Vietnam; CSAR training, and real-world CSAR exercises where we were
constantly lit up. Is that a good enough source for you, or do you know
better?



--Mike

"Michael Wise" > wrote
>
> Fair enough. I guess I'll have to read the book to find out the details.
> However, if the VA has falsified diagnoses for financial gain as the
> author apparently claims, it hasn't been very successful. Both Bush Sr.
> and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously. It seems like the
> leaders who beat the war drums the loudest and lavish money on the
> military the most...also have no qualms about screwing over the people
> who answered the call and paid for it in blood.
>
> The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
> Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
> government didn't want to pay for it).

This condition has been in effect for a very long time.

If a military member is receiving BAS (Basic Allowance for Subsistance), and
is also receiving meals in a military facility (mess facility or hospital),
s/he is required to either pay for the meals at whatever the standard rate
is, or forfiet the per day BAS pay.
You can't receive money to eat, and also get free meals.

See DOD 7000.14-R VOL 7, Ch 25 (Feb 2002)
http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fmr/07a/07A25.pdf

------------------------------
2505 Meal collection rate

250501. Any member receiving a full BAS type must pay for all meals and
rations that he or she receives from, or on behalf of, the government. All
meals furnished by or on behalf of the U.S. Government will be charges at
the rates established annually by the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller)

C. All members receiving any type of full BAS and not on per diem orders, in
the following listed categories, will have the collections for meals
deducted from their pay account. The collections will be for full days at
the discouont meal rate, except the first and last day will be collected at
25 percent of the discount meal rate. Exception to pay account collection
will be made for any meals paid in full by the individual in cash.

1. Sea duty or temporary afloat assignment.
2. Field duty or temporary field assignment
3. Group travel
4. Essential messing
----------------------------------------

Let me reiterate - you can't get paid for BAS, *and* eat free meals.

Now...the case may be made that combat hospitalized personnel should be
exempted, but this is not a condition put in place by Bush and Co to screw
the military members over. It would be an exception to the standing rule.

It certainly *sounds* bad to the non-military person! "OMG....you're making
wounded GI's pay for their own meals in a military hospital? You cheap
*******s!"

Of course, I could be completely wrong, and this was a specific change by
the current administration to the previous regulations. But I'd have to see
some proof of that.

It certainly was the case when I enlisted in 1976, and still was when I
retired in 1997.

Pete

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:14:01 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:

>Both Bush Sr.
>and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously.

"...John McNeill, deputy director of the VFW, credited the Bush
administration with increasing the VA's health care budget during the
last few years..." ?

>The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
>Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
>government didn't want to pay for it).

"The rule was established because most military personnel receive
$8.10 a day as a "basic allowance for subsistence" for food. But when
they are hospitalized, the government tries to recoup the money on the
theory that they are eating hospital food and therefore are
double-dipping."

Military personnel that had to eat in the chow hall, and usually live
on base, pay nothing while in the hospital, but those authorized,
usually to live off base, whether married or unmarried get $8.10 a day
extra to pay for food.

So if they forgive the $8.10 a day one person makes money and the
other gets nothing? And they will probably end up changing the law
because the single person living in the barracks eating in the chow
hall is always the one coming out on the short end of the stick...

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ed, can I ask when John Kerry ever said that _everybody_ serving in
> Vietnam has committed atrocities and were war criminals (verifiable cite
> please)?
>
> I don't see him how saying that atrocities were going on translates to
> everybody was doing them.
>

Can I ask who said that Kerry said that_everybody_ serving in Vietnam had
committed atrocities and were war criminals? (Verifiable cite please?)

Kerry said that thousands had committed atrocities in Vietnam, that it was a
policy ordered from the top and known at all levels in the chain of command.

"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
criminals." John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971



"I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several
months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably
discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes
committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes
committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all
levels of command." John Kerry, Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement,
April 23, 1971

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> So a single person who boasts of being a "staunch Republican"
>

What boast?


>
> and whose
> name was given to the press by "a Republican close to Bush" and who
> claims to have witnessed all these appearances which nobody else can
> recall constitutes credible evidence on your planet?
>

Yes, on my planet, Earth, this man is a credible witness. Not so on your
planet?

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > Ed, can I ask when John Kerry ever said that _everybody_ serving in
> > Vietnam has committed atrocities and were war criminals (verifiable cite
> > please)?
> >
> > I don't see him how saying that atrocities were going on translates to
> > everybody was doing them.
> >
>
> Can I ask who said that Kerry said that_everybody_ serving in Vietnam had
> committed atrocities and were war criminals? (Verifiable cite please?)


Don't you think its polite to answer previous questions directed at and
ignored by you before demanding cites for subsequent questions not
directed at you??? How about we start with your weak credible evidence
posting.

Even so, I'll entertain you:


> 06.12.04, 22:21/Ed Rasimus
> ...From one of Kerry's accused war criminals

How could Ed write such a thing unless either a) he's alleging Mr. Kerry
accused him personally of being a war criminal or b) he's insinuating
that Kerry 30 years ago believed everybody in theater was a war criminal?


Since it's extremely doubtful Mr. Kerry knew Ed then or even knows him
now, b is the logical interpretation.


> 06.13.04, 15:22/Ed Rasimus
> ...It isn't Kerry's combat experience that can speak for itself...It is his
> conduct during the Winter Soldier testimony, his categorization of the
> military still in harm's way as criminals and guilty of atrocities


Ed did not write "most of the military," "some of the military," or even
a "few of the militart." He wrote "the" military which implies all. He
certainly seems to have a fondness for constantly repeating that John
Kerry accused Ed Rasimus of being a war criminal 30 years ago.




> Kerry said that thousands had committed atrocities in Vietnam, that it was a
> policy ordered from the top and known at all levels in the chain of command.


Are you talking to me or to Ed?

>
> "I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
> shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
> search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
> established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
> criminals." John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971


I don't see anything overtly unbelievable in that statement made 30+
years ago. Such statements probably hold true in most wars on either
side since the dawn of man.


> "I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several
> months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably
> discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes
> committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes
> committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all
> levels of command." John Kerry, Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement,
> April 23, 1971

<see above response>


--Mike

In article >,
"Pete" > wrote:

> > Fair enough. I guess I'll have to read the book to find out the details.
> > However, if the VA has falsified diagnoses for financial gain as the
> > author apparently claims, it hasn't been very successful. Both Bush Sr.
> > and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously. It seems like the
> > leaders who beat the war drums the loudest and lavish money on the
> > military the most...also have no qualms about screwing over the people
> > who answered the call and paid for it in blood.
> >
> > The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
> > Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
> > government didn't want to pay for it).
>
> This condition has been in effect for a very long time.
>
> If a military member is receiving BAS (Basic Allowance for Subsistance), and
> is also receiving meals in a military facility (mess facility or hospital),
> s/he is required to either pay for the meals at whatever the standard rate
> is, or forfiet the per day BAS pay.


1) Since when do soldiers in the field receive BAS? (or are you
suggesting the military enrolled them in BAS while they were flying
armless, legless, eyeless, or whatever back home?)

2) Pedantic attempts to enforce BS bureaucracy by desk pilots be damned,
anybody who is in a hospital with wounds sustained in the course of
doing what their country ordered them to do (right or wrong) shouldn't
be charged squat for anything.



--Mike

In article >,
Buzzer > wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:14:01 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:
>
> >Both Bush Sr.
> >and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously.
>
> "...John McNeill, deputy director of the VFW, credited the Bush
> administration with increasing the VA's health care budget during the
> last few years..." ?

If you're going make citations, don't you think you should be including
attributions as well?

Who said that? In what context? How much did Bush slash from the health
care budget before increasing it?

>
> >The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
> >Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
> >government didn't want to pay for it).
>
> "The rule was established because most military personnel receive
> $8.10 a day as a "basic allowance for subsistence" for food.

When I was in, only military personnel who lived off-base received such
compensation. If you were at sea or in the field, BAS stopped.


> But when
> they are hospitalized, the government tries to recoup the money on the
> theory that they are eating hospital food and therefore are
> double-dipping."

Better to go after the kid not even old enough to drink who will never
walk again for that $8.10 than chickenhawk government cronies like
Cheney who fleece there way out of millions.


--Mike

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:


> > and whose
> > name was given to the press by "a Republican close to Bush" and who
> > claims to have witnessed all these appearances which nobody else can
> > recall constitutes credible evidence on your planet?
> >
>
> Yes, on my planet, Earth, this man is a credible witness. Not so on your
> planet?



Let's see:

1) one person whose name was submitted to the press by a "Republican
close to Bush"

2) Who seems to recall all these things in vivid detail where not a
single other soul in the unit (including the unit CO) recalls even
seeing Bush there.

3) Who admits to being a staunch Republican

...is a credible witness?


How exactly is it you define credible? That which is in concurrence with
what you personally want to believe?




--Mike

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> Don't you think its polite to answer previous questions directed at and
> ignored by you before demanding cites for subsequent questions not
> directed at you??? How about we start with your weak credible evidence
> posting.
>

What the hell are you talking about?


>
> Even so, I'll entertain you:
>
>
> > 06.12.04, 22:21/Ed Rasimus
> > ...From one of Kerry's accused war criminals
>
> How could Ed write such a thing unless either a) he's alleging Mr. Kerry
> accused him personally of being a war criminal or b) he's insinuating
> that Kerry 30 years ago believed everybody in theater was a war criminal?
>

I'll take that to be an admission that nobody said that Kerry said
that_everybody_ serving in Vietnam had committed atrocities and were war
criminals.


>
> Are you talking to me or to Ed?
>

I responded to your message, my statement follows quoted material written by
you, it should be obvious I'm talking to you.

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> Let's see:
>
> 1) one person whose name was submitted to the press by a "Republican
> close to Bush"
>
> 2) Who seems to recall all these things in vivid detail where not a
> single other soul in the unit (including the unit CO) recalls even
> seeing Bush there.
>
> 3) Who admits to being a staunch Republican
>
> ..is a credible witness?
>

Yes. Why not?


>
> How exactly is it you define credible? That which is in concurrence with
> what you personally want to believe?
>

Capable of being believed; plausible. Worthy of confidence; reliable.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 04:40:44 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:

>How much did Bush slash from the health
>care budget before increasing it?

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bob
Stump (R-AZ) welcomed the Clinton/Gore Administration’s proposed $1.3
billion increase for VA health care in fiscal year 2001, but wondered
why veterans had to wait so long to get their attention.
The proposed increase is the first from the Administration since the
1996 budget.

"Michael Wise" > wrote
>
>
> 1) Since when do soldiers in the field receive BAS? (or are you
> suggesting the military enrolled them in BAS while they were flying
> armless, legless, eyeless, or whatever back home?)

You have been in the military, right?

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/pay/blbas.htm
"Enlisted members, with or without dependents, used to lose BAS if they were
deployed (or "in the field"). In 1998, Congress changed this. Now, enlisted
members temporarily assigned to duty away from their permanent duty station
or to duty under field conditions at their permanent duty station are
entitled to BAS at a rate not less than that which they had at their
permanent duty station."

hmm...it seems it has changed slightly since I retired. But not by Bush...:)

i.e....you used to lose your BAS, and were provided either per diem pay, or
meals in the dining facility or field kitchen, or MRE's.
Now, it is...you don't lose your BAS (your paycheck remains the same), but
you must pay for all meals, either by deduction, or cash.

Either way, it ends up the same. You cannot double dip. The members actual
money remains the same. You get BAS, or meals, but not both.

Aquaint yourself with DOD 7000.14-R Vol 7A, Chapter 25
http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fmr/07a/07A25.pdf

2502
250201
Section P
"Military members *may not receive* a full BAS (SEPRATS, RIKNA, EMRATS, or
officer BAS) and meals or rations at no charge for the same period of
service. Members in reciept of any type of full BAS *must pay for meals and
rations*. This is a personal obligation of the individual. Meals and rations
may be paid for with cash, by payroll deduction or by collection/reduction
of otherwise entitled per diem. "

[emphasis mine]

2505
250501 Meal Collection Rates
"Any member receiving a full BAS type *must pay for* all meals and rations
that he or she receives from, or on behalf of, the government."

[again, emphasis mine]

It has always been thus.

>
> 2) Pedantic attempts to enforce BS bureaucracy by desk pilots be damned,
> anybody who is in a hospital with wounds sustained in the course of
> doing what their country ordered them to do (right or wrong) shouldn't
> be charged squat for anything.

They're not being 'charged'. They are giving back BAS money that they are
not entitled to because they're getting meals provided by the govt. It
'looks like' a charge, because the finance dept at Walter Reed or Landstuhl
may not be set up to automatically change a members TDY status upon
admission. Their system might be to charge the daily rate, and the member
works it out as far as TDY/per diem/BAS status with their particular finance
office.

It used to **** me off too, having to be the accountant shifting DOD money
from MyHomeBase to the TDY location housing and dining facility. (That's
what computers are for...you figure it out!) But it wasn't extra money I was
entitled to.

Or are you suggesting that military members be entitled to BAS *and* free
meals?

Pete

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Kristan Roberge" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Michael Wise wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > > > What did we get out of it? We changed the way we organize, train and
> > > > fight our wars. We lost one F-105 for every 65 sorties over N. Vietnam
> > > > in '66 and '67. We lost one fixed wing aircraft for every 3500 sorties
> > > > during Desert Storm. We lost one fixed wing aircraft...period, in
> > > > Iraqi Freedom for 16,500 sorties. We learned some lessons.
> > >
> > > Do you suppose the fact that Iraq didn't have the advantage of real-time
> > > super-power support (from the Soviets) in the form of arms, training,
> > > and "advisors" has anything to do with it?
> >
> > nevermind the fact that the US didn't really have air superiority over
> > vietnam,
>
> air superiority: That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force
> over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its
> related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without
> prohibitive interference by the opposing force.
> http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/a/00291.html
> It appears that by that definition (though maybe you are not using the
> definition agreed to by the US military branches) we did indeed have air
> superiority--can you identify any targets we wanted to strike that we were
> prevented from striking, whenever we so chose?
>
> nor
> > did they have the benefit of having waxed almost all the SAM batteries
> > already,
>
> An unfortunate political decision, but regardless, having ADA and SAM's does
> not by definition deny us 'air superiority". Though you are getting a bit
> warmer here--the US did learn a lesson in regards to taking down the IADS,
> instead of letting some politico back DC decide it was not a worthwhile
> target...
>
> nor
> > did they have AWACS aircraft to tell their fighters where the Migs were
> 200
> > or 300 miles
> > out.
>
> Maybe not to the degree that we have now, but we did have these nifty things
> called EC-121's...
>
> >Yeah...learned some lessons... learned how not to do it next time.
>
> I don't know about that; yes, we did learn from the mistakes we made (which
> is why we are the best, right?), but everything we did was not a mistake.
> LBII seemed to be on the right track, and accomplished its goals. The first
> truly effective use of heavy bombers in support of tactical ground units on
> a widespread basis, the use of modern PGM's, effective use of helicopter
> gunships (to include use of reliable ATGM's from helos, during the 72 Easter
> Offensive IIRC), and the most effective use of heliborne airmobile assets up
> to that time, etc.
>
> And
> > how not to do it
> > is against someone as capable as themselves again.
>
> Well, after we get finished with round one, the opposition tends to not be
> very effective at all; witness ODS.
>
> Go after the small
> > enemies, then your president
> > can look good on tv. ignore the big fish that'd kick yer arse again.
>
> And which fish would that be?

china, ya know...that great country full of human rights abusers/oppressors that
the USA is so buddy-buddy with lately because they need their help in dealing
with north korea.

"George Z. Bush" > wrote:

>Michael Wise wrote:

>> One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
>> hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
>> gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you
>> suppose that is?
>
>Maybe because they were fighting different kinds of wars. They each had their
>own peculiar and different kinds of hell, but generally speaking, the one aloft
>was a whole lot cleaner and smelled a whole lot better than the one on the
>ground.

Uhm.. what the hell are you two doing here? Isn't there an
infantry group where you could go hang?


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php

In article >,
Billy Beck > wrote:

> >> One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
> >> hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
> >> gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you
> >> suppose that is?
> >
> >Maybe because they were fighting different kinds of wars. They each had
> >their
> >own peculiar and different kinds of hell, but generally speaking, the one
> >aloft
> >was a whole lot cleaner and smelled a whole lot better than the one on the
> >ground.
>
> Uhm.. what the hell are you two doing here? Isn't there an
> infantry group where you could go hang?


Were you asked to go to an architecture group when you posted here about
the symmetry of the Vietnam War Memorial? No? Then, pack sand.


--Mike

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:14:01 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:

>In article >,
> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>>...It also talks extensively about the VA's interest
>> in perpetuating PTSD to the point of falsifying diagnoses for the
>> purpose of maintaining high funding levels.
>
>
>Fair enough. I guess I'll have to read the book to find out the details.
>However, if the VA has falsified diagnoses for financial gain as the
>author apparently claims, it hasn't been very successful. Both Bush Sr.
>and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously. It seems like the
>leaders who beat the war drums the loudest and lavish money on the
>military the most...also have no qualms about screwing over the people
>who answered the call and paid for it in blood.

The period addressed was the late '70, '80' and early '90s. The issue
was the prevalence of PTSD from the Vietnam war. So, your linkage to
funding cuts is a bit late. You might consider that Clinton also cut
funding for vet programs--it was under his watch that my promised
lifetime health care became an HMO under Tricare which I now pay for.
>
>The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
>Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
>government didn't want to pay for it).

I was hospitalized once during my active duty years (1968) and paid a
per diem charge. You aren't really being charged--you've already been
paid BAS (basic allowance for subsistence) and when your meals are
provided, you repay what has already been advanced to you.

I was hospitalized in 2003 for 2.5 days. Had a 10.5 hour cancer
surgery and post-op care. Total bill was $16.80--that was the cost of
the meals. Outrageous!
>
>
>> (Please do not jump ahead and suggest that I'm all wet if I deny PTSD.
>> I certainly do not. Read the book and see what Burkitt documents.)
>
>
>Sounds like a worthwhile read. The only book I've ever read concerning
>Vietnam was Chickenhawk....which being a helo type, I enjoyed immensely.

It would be self-serving to suggest that you might enjoy When Thunder
Rolled. There are several SAR stories you might find interesting.
>
>> It is his conduct during the
>> Winter Soldier testimony, his categorization of the military still in
>> harm's way as criminals and guilty of atrocities,
>
>Did he say that all military personnel in Vietnam were criminals and
>guilty of atrocities?

Yes, he did.

>> his throwing of
>> someone else's medals over the White House fence
>
>What of it?

You don't see a problem with such a grandstanding effort using someone
else's awards?
>
>> his alignment with
>> VVAW and offering of aid/comfort to the enemy.
>
>
>How did he offer either aid or comfort to the enemy?

His picture hangs in honor in the Vietnamese War Remembrance Museum.
>
>
>> He now seeks to turn the clock back and trade on his combat experience
>> as that seems to offer more traction in a nation at war.
>
>
>He was silent on it for a long time, but the media kept bringing it
>up...over and over again. Is he supposed to remain quiet about his
>honorable service to country?

C'mon. You really haven't been paying attention. Kerry is the one who
repeatedly brings it up. His TV spots running in CO start out with him
slogging through the jungle (unusual position for a Swift boat CC),
and listing his awards.
>
>The Republicans made such a big deal about Clinton not having served and
>avoiding serving. Now that their opposition served in combat and served
>with honor while their candidate and many of the people in his admin
>(the people who really run this country) did everything in their power
>to avoid putting their asses on the line is on the table...they do
>everything to discredit honor where honor is due and inflate the service
>to country of a chickenhawk administration.

I think we've been repeatedly through the issue of length of service
between the two candidates. We've also discussed the dangers involved
in flying single-seat/single-engine military tactical jets.
>
>It's bad enough when chickenhawk politicians use such tactics, but its
>shameful when real vets do. You don't have to like John Kerry (I
>personally don't although the alternative is unthinkable) and you don't
>have to vote for him. But to **** on his service because he came home
>against the war (like many vets) and was outspoken about it is shameful.

I feel no shame at all. I've got a pretty clear idea about what honor
is and what the "band of brothers" thing is about.

>> ...
>> Didn't you say a while back that you were in the CSAR business? Never
>> got to employ your skills?
>
>
>Nope. About 10 years too young to have served in Vietnam and got out
>well before Iraq. I was in the active reserves (HS-246) during the first
>Iraq affair, but never got called...and quit the reserved after
>hostilities ended (out of disgust over US troops being sent there in the
>first place).

Is it unfair to note that you should have been told that when you
signed on to the reserves that you could be "sent over there in the
first place"? And, to go a bit further, to note that your service
seems quite parallel to the President's? Except, of course that when
you signed on there was not the possibility of conflict and when there
was the possibility you got out?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 04:33:55 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:

>1) Since when do soldiers in the field receive BAS? (or are you
>suggesting the military enrolled them in BAS while they were flying
>armless, legless, eyeless, or whatever back home?)

Except for the lowest ranking enlisted troops, almost everyone gets
BAS. Low ranks get a "meal card" which they display at the chow hall
to eat for free. Those on BAS pay the surcharge rate when they eat in
the chow hall.

It has long been a sore point that troops deployed in the field or TDY
to bare-base facilities get docked their BAS when they submit their
travel vouchers. It isn't a new policy.
>
>2) Pedantic attempts to enforce BS bureaucracy by desk pilots be damned,
>anybody who is in a hospital with wounds sustained in the course of
>doing what their country ordered them to do (right or wrong) shouldn't
>be charged squat for anything.

My wife has a favorite quote: "It ain't right, but it's real." What
you think is "right" means nothing. What is in the JTR's is real.




Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

(OXMORON1) wrote in message >...
> BuffyToU "asked"
> >So "Heroism in battle" is the same as being stupid and reckless.
>
> Heroism is one thing, going against policy and beaching/grounding your boat in
> an area known to have recently contained enemy troops, to recover an empty RPG
> launcher is stupid and endangers your crew. This is leadership?
>
> Oxmoron1

The Military thought it was.

As I recall, the actual event was that Kerry turned his bat around,
and went back for wounded soldiers who were in the water. That he
stood on the bow of the boat, exposed to enemy fire and personally
grabbed the soldiers out of the water even though he was wounded
himself. At least, that is what the military report said.

Maybe you are thinking of some other event where he earned a medal for
bravery and heroism.

How many medals for bravery and heroism did George W. Bush earn? How
about Cheney? Trent Lott? Gingrich?

"Tammy" > wrote in message
om...
>
> How many medals for bravery and heroism did George W. Bush earn? How
> about Cheney? Trent Lott? Gingrich?
>

They all earned the same number as Bill Clinton. Why do you ask?

>Subject: Re: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
>From: (Tammy)
>Date: 6/14/2004 7:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(OXMORON1) wrote in message
>...
>> BuffyToU "asked"
>> >So "Heroism in battle" is the same as being stupid and reckless.
>>
>> Heroism is one thing, going against policy and beaching/grounding your boat
>in
>> an area known to have recently contained enemy troops, to recover an empty
>RPG
>> launcher is stupid and endangers your crew. This is leadership?
>>
>> Oxmoron1
>
>The Military thought it was.
>
>As I recall, the actual event was that Kerry turned his bat around,
>and went back for wounded soldiers who were in the water. That he
>stood on the bow of the boat, exposed to enemy fire and personally
>grabbed the soldiers out of the water even though he was wounded
>himself. At least, that is what the military report said.
>
>Maybe you are thinking of some other event where he earned a medal for
>bravery and heroism.
>
>How many medals for bravery and heroism did George W. Bush earn? How
>about Cheney? Trent Lott? Gingrich?

ROFL !!!!

>Subject: Re: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 6/14/2004 8:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: t>
>
>
>"Tammy" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>> How many medals for bravery and heroism did George W. Bush earn? How
>> about Cheney? Trent Lott? Gingrich?
>>
>
>They all earned the same number as Bill Clinton. Why do you ask?


Clinton is in the distant past, same place you are.

So according to your "logic," President Washington should have never "turned
his back on" Benedict Arnold?

Others may criticaize Kerry's service during the war; much of his record is
arguable.

I'm pretty sure it's his actions after the war that the other vets find
disagreeable.

Unlike Art Kramer, I don't believe in giving someone a lifetime pass for
everything because they served.

Steve Swartz



"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> > >> >One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
> > >> >hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
> > >> >gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do
you
> > >> >suppose that is?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> There could be a number of reasons. First, the number who today claim
> > >> "hand-to-hand combat" seems unfortunately to be drastically inflated
> > >> by thousands of poseurs claiming to be something they were not. See
> > >> Burkitt's "Stolen Valor" for some astonishing tales.
> > >
> > >I doubt any of us who are or have been on active duty have much trouble
> > >spotting a poseur. I'm speaking based on conversations I had with
people
> > >who most definitely fought hand-to-hand, like the people I served with
> > >who flew CSAR, some of the people I worked with at the VA, and more
than
> > >a handful of disabled vets who I assisted in getting their benefits.
> >
> > Burkitt reserves a lot of space in his book to discuss the VA.
>
>
> Meaning what? Does he claim combat vets and/or disabled vets working for
> the VA are less than honest?
>
>
> > During Rolling Thunder, I got up each day and went to a briefing with
> > 25 other guys. On average, each and every day for six months, one of
> > those 25 would be lost. Some days, none. Some days three or four.
> > Average, one a day. Keep going to the briefing and one day you will be
> > the one.
>
> Well my hat goes off to you and to all those who paid in blood or risked
> that blood doing what their country told them to do. I find it next to
> impossible to understand how any vet (especially a combat vet) would
> make statements about not "****ing on somebody if they were one fire"
> when that somebody also risked their all and shed blood for their
> country.
>
> Partisanship should never trump honor and respect. It's sad that
> uber-partisans of both major political parties in the U.S. have lost
> sight of that (if they ever had it in the first place).
>
>
>
> > >> As for those who flew "far above", you might want to consider the
> > >> sustained loss rates of the Rolling Thunder participants in
comparison
> > >> to those "hand-to-hand" combats. Or, maybe check the proportion of
> > >> POWs between the ground and air combatants.
> > >
> > >
> > >Nobody questions the dangers faced by aircrews who flew missions in
> > >Vietnam. However, in a fast-mover your odds of getting back to base
> > >outside the country for a cold beer and a hot meal are much better than
> > >the grunt in the jungles with an M-16 even surviving. I don't see how
> > >that can be denied. It's one of the reasons I wasn't a grunt...even
> > >though I knew the chances of surviving any more than a handful of
> > >potential CSAR missions was not good.
> >
> > The odds of completing a 100 mission NVN tour were poor. In '66 an
> > F-105 was lost every 65 missions over NVN. For every five that started
> > a tour, three of the five would be lost. 40% survival rate.
> >
> > There are definitely ground units from the war that suffered similar
> > rates, but that is the exception.
>
>
> I don't doubt what you're saying for a minute. Never having been in
> combat, I can't speak from experience, but numbers on paper be
> damned...I'll take fighting from above over eyeball to eyeball at close
> quarters any day.
>
>
> --Mike

So while we're waiting for Michael to apologize and take responsibility for
his spreading of anti-bush lies and propaganda . . . .

Steve Swartz




"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 04:33:55 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:
>
> >1) Since when do soldiers in the field receive BAS? (or are you
> >suggesting the military enrolled them in BAS while they were flying
> >armless, legless, eyeless, or whatever back home?)
>
> Except for the lowest ranking enlisted troops, almost everyone gets
> BAS. Low ranks get a "meal card" which they display at the chow hall
> to eat for free. Those on BAS pay the surcharge rate when they eat in
> the chow hall.
>
> It has long been a sore point that troops deployed in the field or TDY
> to bare-base facilities get docked their BAS when they submit their
> travel vouchers. It isn't a new policy.
> >
> >2) Pedantic attempts to enforce BS bureaucracy by desk pilots be damned,
> >anybody who is in a hospital with wounds sustained in the course of
> >doing what their country ordered them to do (right or wrong) shouldn't
> >be charged squat for anything.
>
> My wife has a favorite quote: "It ain't right, but it's real." What
> you think is "right" means nothing. What is in the JTR's is real.
>
>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

So while we're waiting for Michael to apologize and take responsibility for
spreading his ant-Bush lies and propaganda . . .

Steve Swartz

"Buzzer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:14:01 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:
>
> >Both Bush Sr.
> >and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously.
>
> "...John McNeill, deputy director of the VFW, credited the Bush
> administration with increasing the VA's health care budget during the
> last few years..." ?
>
> >The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
> >Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
> >government didn't want to pay for it).
>
> "The rule was established because most military personnel receive
> $8.10 a day as a "basic allowance for subsistence" for food. But when
> they are hospitalized, the government tries to recoup the money on the
> theory that they are eating hospital food and therefore are
> double-dipping."
>
> Military personnel that had to eat in the chow hall, and usually live
> on base, pay nothing while in the hospital, but those authorized,
> usually to live off base, whether married or unmarried get $8.10 a day
> extra to pay for food.
>
> So if they forgive the $8.10 a day one person makes money and the
> other gets nothing? And they will probably end up changing the law
> because the single person living in the barracks eating in the chow
> hall is always the one coming out on the short end of the stick...
>

>Subject: Re: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
>From: "Leslie Swartz"
>Date: 6/14/2004 9:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >

>Unlike Art Kramer, I don't believe in giving someone a lifetime pass for
>everything because they served.
>

And how did you serve, if at all

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> >
> >Sounds like a worthwhile read. The only book I've ever read concerning
> >Vietnam was Chickenhawk....which being a helo type, I enjoyed immensely.
>
> It would be self-serving to suggest that you might enjoy When Thunder
> Rolled. There are several SAR stories you might find interesting.


I will read it without a doubt. I just checked and the San Francisco
Public Library system doesn't have it yet....but I'm sure I can find it
somewhere around the city.


> >> It is his conduct during the
> >> Winter Soldier testimony, his categorization of the military still in
> >> harm's way as criminals and guilty of atrocities,
> >
> >Did he say that all military personnel in Vietnam were criminals and
> >guilty of atrocities?
>
> Yes, he did.

Verifiable citation please (one that specifically states _all_)


>
> >> his throwing of
> >> someone else's medals over the White House fence
> >
> >What of it?
>
> You don't see a problem with such a grandstanding effort using someone
> else's awards?


If that someone else was OK with it; so am I.


> >
> >> his alignment with
> >> VVAW and offering of aid/comfort to the enemy.
> >
> >
> >How did he offer either aid or comfort to the enemy?
>
> His picture hangs in honor in the Vietnamese War Remembrance Museum.


So? How does/did that give aid and comfort to the enemy?


> >> He now seeks to turn the clock back and trade on his combat experience
> >> as that seems to offer more traction in a nation at war.
> >
> >
> >He was silent on it for a long time, but the media kept bringing it
> >up...over and over again. Is he supposed to remain quiet about his
> >honorable service to country?
>
> C'mon. You really haven't been paying attention. Kerry is the one who
> repeatedly brings it up.

I have been paying attention. Kerry went months without bringing it up.
The media would have nothing of that and repeatedly glorified him
(unnecessarily, IMHO) because of it. The Bush campaign then took
pre-emptive strikes on his service. Since everybody seems intent on
making it an issue...he included it. I can't say he isn't entitled to
that.


> His TV spots running in CO start out with him
> slogging through the jungle (unusual position for a Swift boat CC),
> and listing his awards.


I don't know about that. I worked alongside a fellow by the name of
Nathan Benjamin for three years at the VA. Nate was also a river rat in
Vietnam. We had numerous conversations about his experience
there....starting with me asking him how he got the the horizontal scar
from side-to-side on the back of his neck. Seems they routinely set
ashore for various missions not limited to search and destroy. During
once such occasion, they had just set ashore and hadn't gone more than
100 ft into the jungle when they were immediately engaged in
hand-to-hand combat with Nate taking a machete blow to the back of his
neck. The fact that he was falling forward saved him from being
decapitated and able to recover and fire his favored weapon (.44 mag
with the ammo tips cross cut by his knife)...putting an immediate end to
his attacker's life. All of this happened while in the jungle and during
the course of a brown water mission.



> >> ...
> >> Didn't you say a while back that you were in the CSAR business? Never
> >> got to employ your skills?
> >
> >
> >Nope. About 10 years too young to have served in Vietnam and got out
> >well before Iraq. I was in the active reserves (HS-246) during the first
> >Iraq affair, but never got called...and quit the reserved after
> >hostilities ended (out of disgust over US troops being sent there in the
> >first place).
>
> Is it unfair to note that you should have been told that when you
> signed on to the reserves that you could be "sent over there in the
> first place"?


Been told what? That I could be sent into harm's way? Having come into
the active reserves in December 1987 directly from a 4.5 year hitch on
active duty...I was very well aware of such possibilities.

In 1987 Iraq was our buddy. I doubt any of envisioned Operation Re-elect
Bush would be coming a few years down the pike. When hostilities began,
I was onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln doing my two weeks for the year
with HS-6.

Did I bug out then? No (although I was under no obligation to the
reserves). I was against that operation from the start and joined
protesters every Sunday in Balboa Park (San Diego), but I stayed
in...all of us with orders to have our gear ready for immediate
deployment to a fleet squadron. I couldn't fathom getting out when the
people I flew with and cared about most would have to pick up my missing
slack if called upon.

I waited till _after_ hostilities ended. Shortly thereafter in the
middle of a drill week-end, I got in my car and drove off NAS North
Island and said goodbye to the military forever.


> And, to go a bit further, to note that your service
> seems quite parallel to the President's?

The president served on active duty?



> Except, of course that when
> you signed on there was not the possibility of conflict

The economic draft lives on in this country. I joined for the same
reason the vast majority of enlisted people join: as a 17 year-old
emancipated minor, it was the only way I could see ever getting a chance
to go to college. I also believed everything my country told me and even
voted for Reagan.


> and when there
> was the possibility you got out?

There was less of a possibility of being sent in harm's way when I got
out than when I came in...although the possibilities of dying did not
favor in to the equation in either case.



--Mike

Make that "he turned his boat around"

(Tammy) wrote in message >...
> (OXMORON1) wrote in message >...
> > BuffyToU "asked"
> > >So "Heroism in battle" is the same as being stupid and reckless.
> >
> > Heroism is one thing, going against policy and beaching/grounding your boat in
> > an area known to have recently contained enemy troops, to recover an empty RPG
> > launcher is stupid and endangers your crew. This is leadership?
> >
> > Oxmoron1
>
> The Military thought it was.
>
> As I recall, the actual event was that Kerry turned his bat around,
> and went back for wounded soldiers who were in the water. That he
> stood on the bow of the boat, exposed to enemy fire and personally
> grabbed the soldiers out of the water even though he was wounded
> himself. At least, that is what the military report said.
>
> Maybe you are thinking of some other event where he earned a medal for
> bravery and heroism.
>
> How many medals for bravery and heroism did George W. Bush earn? How
> about Cheney? Trent Lott? Gingrich?

Michael Wise > wrote:

> Billy Beck > wrote:
>
>> >> One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
>> >> hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
>> >> gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you
>> >> suppose that is?
>> >
>> >Maybe because they were fighting different kinds of wars. They each had
>> >their own peculiar and different kinds of hell, but generally speaking, the one
>> >aloft was a whole lot cleaner and smelled a whole lot better than the one on the
>> >ground.
>>
>> Uhm.. what the hell are you two doing here? Isn't there an
>> infantry group where you could go hang?

>Were you asked to go to an architecture group when you posted here about
>the symmetry of the Vietnam War Memorial? No? Then, pack sand.

Not bleedin' likely.

It's pretty funny, however, to watch this sort of thing. "Oooh,
their war was better than *their* war!" I might expect that sort of
rubbish from high-schoolers and other dip****s who have no earthly
idea what they're talking about, but I'm looking at a couple of
posters who surprised me with it.


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php

Michael:


*You* are the one who set up the strawman "ALL;" none of the posters with
whom you are currently disagreeing were that stupid.

Kerry didn't have to say "ALL" of those serving in Vietnam committed war
crimes in order for him to be an idiot. What Kerry said (posted here ad
nauseum) was bad enough.

Enough with the "ALL" already; many of us in this forum have studied
rhetoric and logic and we see through your ploy. It's tedious; on the order
of the (ever popular; see 23d iteration of the Keith Wilshaw "use of Humor"
thread) ad hominem. Adds nothing; BORING.

Steve Swartz


"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> > >
> > >Sounds like a worthwhile read. The only book I've ever read concerning
> > >Vietnam was Chickenhawk....which being a helo type, I enjoyed
immensely.
> >
> > It would be self-serving to suggest that you might enjoy When Thunder
> > Rolled. There are several SAR stories you might find interesting.
>
>
> I will read it without a doubt. I just checked and the San Francisco
> Public Library system doesn't have it yet....but I'm sure I can find it
> somewhere around the city.
>
>
> > >> It is his conduct during the
> > >> Winter Soldier testimony, his categorization of the military still in
> > >> harm's way as criminals and guilty of atrocities,
> > >
> > >Did he say that all military personnel in Vietnam were criminals and
> > >guilty of atrocities?
> >
> > Yes, he did.
>
> Verifiable citation please (one that specifically states _all_)
>
>
> >
> > >> his throwing of
> > >> someone else's medals over the White House fence
> > >
> > >What of it?
> >
> > You don't see a problem with such a grandstanding effort using someone
> > else's awards?
>
>
> If that someone else was OK with it; so am I.
>
>
> > >
> > >> his alignment with
> > >> VVAW and offering of aid/comfort to the enemy.
> > >
> > >
> > >How did he offer either aid or comfort to the enemy?
> >
> > His picture hangs in honor in the Vietnamese War Remembrance Museum.
>
>
> So? How does/did that give aid and comfort to the enemy?
>
>
> > >> He now seeks to turn the clock back and trade on his combat
experience
> > >> as that seems to offer more traction in a nation at war.
> > >
> > >
> > >He was silent on it for a long time, but the media kept bringing it
> > >up...over and over again. Is he supposed to remain quiet about his
> > >honorable service to country?
> >
> > C'mon. You really haven't been paying attention. Kerry is the one who
> > repeatedly brings it up.
>
> I have been paying attention. Kerry went months without bringing it up.
> The media would have nothing of that and repeatedly glorified him
> (unnecessarily, IMHO) because of it. The Bush campaign then took
> pre-emptive strikes on his service. Since everybody seems intent on
> making it an issue...he included it. I can't say he isn't entitled to
> that.
>
>
> > His TV spots running in CO start out with him
> > slogging through the jungle (unusual position for a Swift boat CC),
> > and listing his awards.
>
>
> I don't know about that. I worked alongside a fellow by the name of
> Nathan Benjamin for three years at the VA. Nate was also a river rat in
> Vietnam. We had numerous conversations about his experience
> there....starting with me asking him how he got the the horizontal scar
> from side-to-side on the back of his neck. Seems they routinely set
> ashore for various missions not limited to search and destroy. During
> once such occasion, they had just set ashore and hadn't gone more than
> 100 ft into the jungle when they were immediately engaged in
> hand-to-hand combat with Nate taking a machete blow to the back of his
> neck. The fact that he was falling forward saved him from being
> decapitated and able to recover and fire his favored weapon (.44 mag
> with the ammo tips cross cut by his knife)...putting an immediate end to
> his attacker's life. All of this happened while in the jungle and during
> the course of a brown water mission.
>
>
>
> > >> ...
> > >> Didn't you say a while back that you were in the CSAR business? Never
> > >> got to employ your skills?
> > >
> > >
> > >Nope. About 10 years too young to have served in Vietnam and got out
> > >well before Iraq. I was in the active reserves (HS-246) during the
first
> > >Iraq affair, but never got called...and quit the reserved after
> > >hostilities ended (out of disgust over US troops being sent there in
the
> > >first place).
> >
> > Is it unfair to note that you should have been told that when you
> > signed on to the reserves that you could be "sent over there in the
> > first place"?
>
>
> Been told what? That I could be sent into harm's way? Having come into
> the active reserves in December 1987 directly from a 4.5 year hitch on
> active duty...I was very well aware of such possibilities.
>
> In 1987 Iraq was our buddy. I doubt any of envisioned Operation Re-elect
> Bush would be coming a few years down the pike. When hostilities began,
> I was onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln doing my two weeks for the year
> with HS-6.
>
> Did I bug out then? No (although I was under no obligation to the
> reserves). I was against that operation from the start and joined
> protesters every Sunday in Balboa Park (San Diego), but I stayed
> in...all of us with orders to have our gear ready for immediate
> deployment to a fleet squadron. I couldn't fathom getting out when the
> people I flew with and cared about most would have to pick up my missing
> slack if called upon.
>
> I waited till _after_ hostilities ended. Shortly thereafter in the
> middle of a drill week-end, I got in my car and drove off NAS North
> Island and said goodbye to the military forever.
>
>
> > And, to go a bit further, to note that your service
> > seems quite parallel to the President's?
>
> The president served on active duty?
>
>
>
> > Except, of course that when
> > you signed on there was not the possibility of conflict
>
> The economic draft lives on in this country. I joined for the same
> reason the vast majority of enlisted people join: as a 17 year-old
> emancipated minor, it was the only way I could see ever getting a chance
> to go to college. I also believed everything my country told me and even
> voted for Reagan.
>
>
> > and when there
> > was the possibility you got out?
>
> There was less of a possibility of being sent in harm's way when I got
> out than when I came in...although the possibilities of dying did not
> favor in to the equation in either case.
>
>
>
> --Mike

Google me tyro; do your homework.

The kids are so lazy nowadays.

Steve Swartz

"Lisakbernacchia" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
> >From: "Leslie Swartz"
> >Date: 6/14/2004 9:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
>
> >Unlike Art Kramer, I don't believe in giving someone a lifetime pass for
> >everything because they served.
> >
>
> And how did you serve, if at all

>ubject: Re: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
>From: "Leslie Swartz"
>Date: 6/14/2004 9:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>So while we're waiting for Michael to apologize and take responsibility for
>spreading his ant-Bush lies and propaganda . . .
>
>Steve Swartz
>
>"Buzzer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:14:01 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:
>>
>> >Both Bush Sr.
>> >and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously.
>>


Cut VA spending????? No patriot would do that.